Monthly Archives: November 2020

Draining the Swamp, or rather, the Wetland: An outline of water grabbing in the Inner Niger Delta in Mali

Posted on by

A view of Bartaga village on the bank on the inner delta of the Niger River, Source: National Geographic

Poised on the edge of the Sahara Desert in Mali lies a wetland bigger than Belgium: the Inner Niger River Delta. You might expect to find nothing but sand dunes and dry lake beds. Instead nearly two million people as well as a diverse array of birds, plants, and other creatures rely on the Inner Niger River Delta’s rich landscape to survive. “Everything here depends on the water.” This declaration comes from Daouda Sanakoua, the mayor of Deboye, a district along the Niger River. Here, on the brink of a vast desert, supporting a thriving ecosystem is no small feat. 

But in recent years the once lush landscape has become a site of political tension. Climate change and capitalism-fueled power struggles over water management began to threaten the delta in 2012. As the wetland’s water levels dipped, uncertainty and violence rose to the surface. These water disputes in Mali may be indicative of a larger global trend. So, what happened in Mali, and what does it mean for the rest of the world?

Map of the Niger River where the Inner Niger Delta is circled in purple, Source: Geology Page 

What happened in 2012?

In 2012 the Inner Niger wetland began to dry up. But the story begins much earlier, with the French colonization of Mali in the 1890s. For much of the twentieth century France’s colonization horrifically impacted Malians as well as the country’s ecosystems. History seemed set to repeat itself when in 2012, the Mali government announced its intention to divert water destined for the Inner Niger Delta to create agricultural opportunities for foreign companies from China, Germany, the United States, and, of course, France. 

This is the ugly intersection of capitalism and neo-colonialism. Neo-colonialism, or the use of power and foreign pressures to control and influence other countries, encouraged Mali’s government to place the interests of outside powers over those of their own people. As Lamine Coulibaly, a citizen of Mali, warns “[the government] cannot see when that investment will do more harm than good to its people.”

 This harm has a name: “water grabbing.” Water grabbing happens when a powerful group uses water to their own, usually monetary or political, gain, leaving communities downstream with an inequitable share of remaining water. 

This game of power did not end in 2012. Today, tensions continue to rise. Continual wetland mismanagement has created food and water insecurity, forcing residents of the delta to defend their resources using every means possible, including violence. This violence is the direct result of global power structures such as colonialism and capitalism which value profit over people and planet.  

 

The Role of Environmental Degradation and Climate Change

The tensions in the Inner Niger Delta are inflamed by climate change and environmental degradation. Wetlands are always affected by seasonal cycles, but now, as climate change intensifies the extremes of both rainfall and droughts in various areas, the wetland ecosystem is under high stress. 

The negative effects of climate change compound with unsustainable land practices to threaten the region’s diverse inhabitants. Deforestation, largely for agriculture, has led to erosion, muddying the once relatively clear waters of the Inner Niger Delta. Plumes of silt imperil fish, plants, and other species that depend on the historically clear water-quality for survival. 

Especially at risk is the Delta’s diverse bird population. An essential site for both breeding and wintering, the wetland supports millions of birds each year. Endangered black crowned cranes, European kingfishers, and native Mali fire-finches are all dependent on this region. The Inner Niger Delta is vital to the survival of these bird species and many others since it has historically remained wet throughout the dry season as other locations run dry. 

Between the climate crisis and governmental mismanagement of the wetland, there is much at stake. This lethal combination means the river could run completely dry as often as every fourth year. 

Black Crowned Crane, European Kingfisher, and Mali Fire-finch (left to right)

Global Effects of Water Grabbing 

The conflict in the heart of Mali foreshadows our world’s future. As freshwater sources become  more scarce, a disturbing global pattern is taking effect. All over the globe, communities dependent on wetlands and other natural water sources are left to the mercy of those in power as water grabbing becomes a norm. In Ethiopia and Kenya, water is being drained from lake Turkana, which supports roughly half a million people. Along the Nile, 11 different foreign investors have staked claim to large swaths of land in an attempt to access water for agriculture, detracting from local water usage. In Tibet, a new form of water grabbing is emerging as companies harvest glacier water to bottle and sell, disrupting delicate ecosystems in the process. 

These problems won’t go away without the global community re-prioritizing shared values. One place to start might be to pay closer attention to protecting global wetlands and their traditional use. Wetlands provide significant ecosystem services, from carbon-storage to freshwater purification. Cases where poor management and climate change have intersected to cause wetland destruction are detrimental not just to those living nearby, but to the whole global community. We cannot let water grabbing become a norm. If we give in to these power structures now, their swift and dangerous course may leave irreparable damage to our planet.

 

To learn more, check out these links: 

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/12/mali-wetlands-drained-foreign-agribusiness-water-grab/

https://www.worldwildlife.org/ecoregions/at0903

https://waterpeacesecurity.org/info/mali

https://blogs.worldbank.org/dev4peace/water-peace-preventing-conflict-related-water-and-wetlands

 

Warming Wetlands, Compounding Carbon

Posted on by

It should not come as a shock to any of us that climate change as a result of human action, or perhaps at this point inaction, is a scientifically accepted fact. Additionally, to reach a goal of limiting average global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, scientists  tell us we need to find ways to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere, not just stop emitting it. 

Why? Well, it’d certainly be easier if we could pretend past emissions don’t exist. But, today, about half of all the CO2 emitted since 1850 is still in our atmosphere contributing to climate change. So, how on Earth do we capture, and store, large amounts of carbon safely? 

It turns out there’s some good news. While we work on building large-scale technologies that draw down carbon from the atmosphere, nature has provided a backup plan. Wetlands are the most productive landscape for capturing and storing carbon. Although they occupy only 7% of the earth’s surface, wetlands are currently storing about 225 billion metric tons of carbon. That’s a little more than 6 times the world’s annual CO2 emissions. 

But even as wetlands have potential to help fight climate change, a warming climate threatens their ability to capture carbon. A new study carried out by a team of scientists at the Yellow River Delta in China’s Shandong Province shows that the warmer coastal wetlands get, the less carbon dioxide they can pull from the atmosphere. 

The Yellow River Delta study found that as salt levels in the wetland’s soil increased, carbon storage capacity decreased. Let’s unpack this a bit. When salty water evaporates from wetlands, it leaves salt behind.  Evaporation, caused by increasing temperatures, makes for saltier soil. 

Okay, so what if the soil is saltier? Well, for one, saltiness determines which plants can survive in wetlands. As we might expect, salty soil leads to salt-loving plants taking over wetland landscapes. The Yellow River Delta study found that these salt-tolerant plants tend to be smaller than the plants they’re replacing. And, since plants store carbon through the process of photosynthesis, smaller plants mean less photosynthesis, and less carbon storage. 

Yellow River, Shandong Province China, Source: CGTN

As temperatures rise, wetlands are storing less carbon in the hot summer months than in the cooler autumn months. This marks a departure from plants’ normal carbon storing process. Typically, plants sequester carbon dioxide in the spring and summer when they are leafed out, storing more CO2 for the short term. Then, in the winter and fall, plants store less CO2.

The Yellow River Delta Study shows that as wetlands warm, seasonal variation reverses. Summer months will be much less productive for storing carbon than fall months. Seasonal carbon storage is short-term, but this disruption of normal carbon variations shows how deeply humans are impacting the environment.  Human-caused climate change is threatening not only seasonal carbon cycles in wetlands, but also decreasing their carbon storage capacity overall. 

As we release carbon into the atmosphere, contributing to global warming, we can expect to see saltier coastal wetlands. And as this study establishes, changes in salt levels alter the types of plants present in the wetland, affecting both seasonal carbon dioxide variations as well as the overall ability for wetlands to store carbon on a long-term scale. 

This should raise warning flags. Although they cover just 7% of our planet’s surface, humanity needs wetlands to store as much carbon as they possibly can. But the more carbon we release into the atmosphere, the less ability wetlands will have to effectively store it. We cannot depend on our ecosystems to repair the consequences of our actions. 

This is nature’s final warning to us. As we watch the most effective carbon-capturing landscape lose its potential to help us through this crisis, humanity must take broad and ambitious action to combat climate change, now. 

 

Wetlands and the Climate Crisis

Posted on by

Wetland in Everglades national Park, FL, Source: National Geographic

As we race to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, wetlands are our little-known ally. With the ability to store up to fifty times more carbon than the Earth’s rainforests, wetlands are some of the most effective naturally occurring ecosystems for combating climate change. Although they occupy only 3-5% of the world’s surface, wetlands hold an astounding 20-30% of carbon stored in the Earth’s soil. 

They deliver other benefits as well. Wetlands help protect against flooding, an increasingly common side-effect of climate change as sea levels rise. And, as global water scarcity grows, they also purify much of the earth’s available freshwater. When protected, wetlands are a tremendous resource. 

Peat Bog, Nantucket Island, MA, Source: National Geographic

So, what are wetlands? They are broadly defined by the Environmental Protection Agency as areas where the ground is soaked by water for at least part if not all of the year. Water may be above the soil as, for example, in swamps, but in other cases the ground is waterlogged just below the surface. Since the definition of wetland is general, there are many differing types, ranging from coastal mangroves, to marshes, to peat bogs. 

From their broad definition you might expect wetlands to be everywhere. In reality they are disappearing rapidly. In the past 100 years nearly half of Earth’s wetlands have been destroyed. 

Swamp in Loango National Park, Gabon, Africa, Source: National Geographic

Climate change and human disturbance increasingly threaten wetlands worldwide. In a cruel paradox, humanity desperately needs wetlands to help sequester carbon dioxide, yet our carbon emissions and ever-expanding infrastructure development threaten their survival. Although international efforts to solve the climate crisis have long hinged on emissions reductions, it is now time to also focus our efforts on preserving wetlands. 

International cooperation is key to large scale preservation. Questions of land ownership, often complicated by the colonial histories of various countries, affect who has power in determining which wetlands to protect. 

Wetlands have tremendous potential to provide us with necessary resources while also contributing to a climate solution. But to fully reap the benefits of wetlands’ potential, humanity has significant conservation hurdles to jump. Through examination of their historic usage, ecological potential, and management challenges, I will explore the role wetlands should play in humanity’s future, and how we can get there. 

 

 

Lead Kills: The Physical, Social, and Environmental Cost of Lead

Posted on by

For nearly a century, we have known about the dangerous threat of lead. Yet a study by the World Health Organization estimated that even in 2017, lead exposure still caused 1.06 million deaths. If the science has been clear for so long, why is lead still killing us?

Scientists know how lead enters and affects our bodies. Exposure to lead occurs through contaminated water, air, dust, or food. Our bodies absorb lead when we swallow dust or tainted food, or inhale small lead particles. Lead then enters our blood stream where it travels to various organs, posing the most risk to the brain.

Alabama Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program Infographic [Image Credit: National Environmental Health Association]

We also know that lead hits children hardest because they play in contaminated dust or dirt, and pretty much everything goes in their mouths. Even worse, children absorb more lead relative to their size than adults.

The problem is that people still think that there is an “acceptable level of lead” we can have in our bodies. But at the ‘acceptable’ level in the US, children still show symptoms of lead poisoning. Even when the CDC emphasizes that there is no safe blood lead level for children, the US continues to use more lead every year in batteries and vehicles. While the US government and international institutions have taken some action to reduce lead, much of the burden of reducing exposure is still placed on communities and families.

Lead contamination is not an issue any individual can fix. It requires government programs to clean existing sites, and regulate corporations to clean up their act. But what happens when this doesn’t happen equitably? Government programs, like the EPA’s Superfund program, disproportionately clean up toxic sites in white, wealthier areas, while the cleanup process in Black and Indigenous communities is significantly slower and less well funded. Three out of five Black Americans still live in communities with uncontrolled toxic waste. This results in the disproportionate impact of lead pollution in Black and Indigenous communities; 11.2% of Black children suffer lead poisoning, compared to 2.3% of white children.

For my beat, I will track down the unseen, toxic legacies of lead, such as mine waste, lead in soils, and even lead in the dust of your home. I will investigate questions like: how does lead poisoning intersect with issues like climate change? How can lead get into my home? And why is there no national or international plan to end lead exposure for good?

Stop Sweeping Dust under the Rug: What makes up indoor dust, and is it dangerous?

Posted on by

[Image Credit: ABC News]

The potential for exposure to lead is more complicated than you may believe. According to a new study in Science of the Total Environment published last March by researchers at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia, the size of dust in your home might affect how dangerous it is.

If you are like me, you think that beyond lead mines and old paint chips, there isn’t much risk of exposure to lead. Similarly, you might think that the issue of lead poisoning isn’t relevant anymore; the developmental delays, neurologic changes, and even fatalities caused by lead poisoning are no longer a concern. Professor Mark Patrick Taylor, co-author and part of a global network working to get to the bottom of what makes up the average person’s household dust, argues that this isn’t always the case.

“A lot of dust is skin,” Taylor says, in addition to “hair, carpet fluff, clothing fibers, pet hair, soil from outside [which] is rich in organic matter, leaves, etc.” However, Taylor is most concerned about the inorganic contaminants (or non-living parts of dust) in people’s homes. When you walk into your house, your shoes track in all the contaminants you may have stepped on outside, which becomes indoor dust. This is most concerning when the dust is contaminated with toxic elements, like zinc, arsenic, and lead. The chance for these toxic elements to get into your home depends on where you live. Any area with an industrial history, like many big cities and mining towns, has the potential for these metals to get into your dust.

But how much of that lead can actually get into your body? The answer may be in your vacuum cleaner. Sampling dust from Sydney residents’ homes, vacuum cleaner bags held the secrets the scientists were after. Their goal was to see how the size of household-dust affected the amount of lead your body might be able to take up, also called its bioaccessibility.

To do this, researcher Israel Doyi and his team collected over 300 vacuum cleaner bags from across Sydney, and sorted the dust into four different sizes:

Household dust under the microscope [Image Credit: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases]

They thought that size might affect the amount of lead that enters your bloodstream, expecting smaller particles to be more dangerous. Even though you can’t see these dust particles, they are especially dangerous if you inhale or ingest them, going straight to the lungs and stomach and directly into your bloodstream.

In order to see how much lead the body might take up, researchers used simulated gastric fluid. This fluid recreates the complex chemical reactions that happen in our stomachs, and allows scientists to see how lead in dust interacts with our bodies. What they found was surprising.

The size of dust matters a lot. They were surprised to find that just because a piece of lead dust is small, that doesn’t make it more dangerous. Most significantly, they found that the very smallest (smaller than 45μm) and the largest dust (150-250μm) poses the greatest threat to our health. This knowledge is critical, because larger dust particles are much more common than smaller dust particles. Taylor summarized the finding, saying “if [people are] going to have any environmental exposures from environmental contaminants, it’s likely to be from dust.” When people spend up to 90% of their time indoors, these results are concerning, and require action.

This study should influence how we address lead exposure. Most health risk assessments assume that the risk of lead in dust is uniform, regardless of the size of the dust. This study shows otherwise. Regulators like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the Australian equivalent, the National Environmental Protection Council (NEPC), must take this study and the size of lead into account when calculating risk. Changes to risk assessment models would accurately redesignate sites as toxic and require new clean-up efforts.

Any final tips on how to keep your home clean? Taylor recommends using a wet mop or HEPA vacuum to clean, keeping separate indoor and outdoor rugs and regularly cleaning both. And next time you come back from a walk, leave your shoes at the door.

Climate Change is Putting You at Risk of Lead Poisoning

Posted on by

[Image Credit: Scientific American]

This summer alone, we have seen the West Coast and Mountain West burn, the Midwest flood, and the Gulf pounded by hurricane after hurricane. When most of us think about climate change, it looms as the 21st centuries greatest environmental challenge that only the cutting edge of science can anticipate and counteract.

The bygone problem of lead rarely comes to mind. It seems like a legacy of the 20th century that used leaded gasoline and toxic glazes and paints. But what does it mean when an age-old problem like lead exposure meets a new problem like climate change?

Why worry about lead?

Lead is a neurotoxin. It damages the nervous system, causing neurological disorders, brain damage, and behavioral problems. Lead poisoning generally occurs slowly due to a build-up of lead in the body over months or years. Children under six are especially vulnerable, absorbing five times as much lead as adults, affecting their developing brains.

Most people are exposed to lead by inhaling particles that are the legacy of leaded gasoline exhaust, or by ingesting contaminated dust, water, food, or paint.

 But how can a warming climate increase lead poisoning?

In many places, higher temperatures will increase dryness and drought.

Drier soils make dirt dustier. If there is lead in the soil, it becomes more mobile in that dust. These small bits of lead dust get everywhere: in your home, on your food, and even in your eyes and lungs. Research has shown that most of the planet is tainted by the fallout from leaded gasoline. As the climate shifts, communities already contaminated with lead will become even more exposed.

What role do forest fires play in this?

New research shows that forest fires remobilize lead that was already in their environment, which can make lead contamination more widespread.

Fires do this by releasing old lead stored in soils contaminated over 30 years ago with lead particles from leaded gasoline (shown below). Wildfires are so hot they volatilize soils, making the lead airborne, transporting it by the wind along with ash and smoke. The amount of lead in forests is very small, but when compounded over hundreds of thousands of acres, it has a significant effect.

Most shocking, fires can double air lead levels during wildfire seasons within 200 miles of affected areas.

Lead particles contaminate soil, which is reemitted by wildfires [Image Credit: Cynthia Isley]

Couldn’t more flooding cleanse contaminated soil?

Unfortunately, flooding does the opposite. Increased flooding heightens the risk of lead poisoning by moving lead out of riverbeds, and into communities.

We will see more long-term flooding under climate change. These long lasting, stagnant floods push metals away from river banks where they were previously contained. Lead then becomes an integral part of the soils left behind, contaminating homes, yards, and parks that were previously lead-free. Increased flooding is especially concerning for those living downstream from lead hot spots, such as abandoned or active mines.

Flooding in the Midwest threatens to spread lead pollution [Image Credit: Jeremy Deaton]

Can we get rid of lead while addressing climate change?

Unfortunately, lead may be important to a clean energy future.

As we use more renewable technologies, we will increase our dependence on batteries. Lead-acid batteries are likely to play a role in supporting renewable technologies. The good news? Lead-acid batteries can be recycled. In fact, almost 99% of lead-acid batteries used in the US since 2007 were recycled. While it is likely that we will eventually transition away from lead-acid batteries, the millions of pounds of lead in these batteries still have the potential to contaminate communities.

New technology also requires lead. The futuristic sounding perovskite, the newest class of solar cells, uses lead. These solar cells need lead to form the complex internal structure that makes this extra-efficient solar power possible. Luckily, this technology only uses 800 mg per solar panel, as opposed to the standard car battery that contains 9,000,000mg (or 20 pounds).

[Image Credit: Science Magazine]

It is clear that it will take a concerted effort to address the climate crisis. This fight will also require continued diligence so that in addressing the most pressing challenge of the 21st century, we do not exacerbate the legacies of one of the worst environmental crises of the 20th century.

Holy Cow!: Beef, Butchers, and the Amazonian Fire Emergency

Posted on by

The Amazon rainforest has, again, gone up in flames. Satellites recorded 32,017 fires in September this year, a 61% rise from the same month in 2019. Multiple interconnected factors fuel this crisis—one of them is beef.

Last year’s fires were three times more likely to have started in beef farming zones than in non-grazing areas. Beef conglomerates such as JBS, Minerva, and Marfrig export the lion’s share of Amazonian beef to international chains such as Walmart, McDonalds, and Burger King. Demand alone hasn’t made Brazil the biggest beef exporter; domestic policies have played a key role in the rise of Brazil’s beef packing industry.

Here is what you need to know about how the Big Mac is driving the “world’s biggest single environmental crisis.”

One of the biggest suppliers for fast food giants, Cargill, has been accused of fueling deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon (Source: Greenbiz).

Cattle Ranching in the Amazon Region

Amazonian fires are often intentionally set to clear forest area for cattle ranching. Cheap land, low input costs, and convenient transportation incentivize encroachment into the forest frontier. Agricultural productivity in the rainforest is poor, however: The land generates low yields, necessitating more forest clearing and expansion of pastureland.

The cattle ranching juggernaut took root in the 1980s, when the Brazilian government introduced economic reforms to spur development in the Amazon. Alongside this economic and policy restructuring, improvements to road infrastructure and meat processing facilities paved the way for the beef industry in the rainforest. Then, the Brazilian currency depreciated, driving down the price of Brazilian beef and launching the country’s beef exports into the global market.

The Booming Beef Industry

As the world becomes wealthier, our collective appetite for beef balloons. China and Hong Kong, in particular, are ravenous for burgers. These two markets consumed 44% of total beef exports from the Amazon in 2018.

Beef is also at the center of a trade deal between the European Union and Mercosur (a trade coalition established by Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay), which is pending ratification. If implemented, the agreement could eliminate a 20% charge on imported beef in the EU. According to the head of the Brazilian Association of Meat Exporters, Antônio Camardelli, “a deal of this magnitude is like an invitation card for speaking with other countries,” and further boosting Brazil’s beef packing industry. Satiating the world’s craze for the Big Mac, however, means bulldozing more rainforest.

Reactions to the Beef Establishment

Yet beef businesses have drawn fierce opposition from global leaders. In the aftermath of the 2019 fires, the Finnish finance minister urged the European Union to “review the possibility of banning Brazilian beef imports.” This was in an effort to pressurize Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro into taking a stronger stance against unrestrained deforestation.

The EU-Mercosur agreement is also steeped in the beef controversy. Belgium, Ireland, Luxembourg, Austria, and the Netherlands have all criticized the deal, pointing to Brazil’s weak environmental regulations and the “unfair competition” the deal will impose on European farmers.

Protestors object to the Mercosur Deal outside the Brazilian embassy in Dublin, Ireland (Source: Independent).

Environmental activists have long raised the alarm on Amazonian forest destruction. In 2009, the Brazilian government buckled under concerted public pressure and issued a moratorium on beef production in recently deforested zones. The beef industries, for their part, yielded to the embargo. Marfrig, Minerva, JBS-Friboi, and Bertin implemented certification and monitoring systems to ensure that their beef supply was not linked to deforestation. Walmart, Pão de Açúcar, and Carrefour also terminated contracts with suppliers implicated in torching the Amazon. It looked like the world had circumvented a full-blown ecological crisis in the world’s largest rainforest.

This newfound hope was short-lived. Deregulation and corruption under Bolsonaro’s administration have crippled efforts to rein in the beef frenzy. In 2017, for example, JBS was caught in the spotlight for the company’s role in not just illegal deforestation but animal welfare violations and even slave labor.

And then former Brazilian president Michel Temer appointed Osmar Serraglio as justice minister. Serraglio is a member of the “beef caucus,” an alliance of powerful lawmakers who represent the interests of the agriculture sector. The national coordinator of Brazil’s Association of Indigenous Peoples Sônia Guajajara made it clear what was at stake: “He is working so the land will be given to [the ranchers]. We are in a war moment.”

What is a Big Mac Aficionado to Do?

While Brazilian politics today favors the cattle industry, consumers can wield their influence to balance the scales. It was, after all, sustained international scrutiny that pushed Brazil to act swiftly in the face of spiraling deforestation in the mid-2000s. Demonstrating against corruption, advocating for sustainable agriculture, and holding “beef giants” accountable could drive market and policy shifts.

For all the Big Mac enthusiasts out there, it’s imperative to reduce beef consumption. The beef business is a forest killing, water-guzzling, greenhouse gas emitting industry. Here is one area of climate change where many small dietary changes could add up to create momentous environmental change.

So, the next time you are in McDonalds, perhaps consider skipping the Big Mac.

The Hidden Health Crisis of the Amazonian Forest Fires

Posted on by

Intact rainforests may be one of our greatest defenses against disease outbreaks such as Covid-19. A recent study published in the journal Forests reveals the potential health impacts of intensifying fires in the Amazon.

In the summer of 2019, newspaper headlines screamed, “The Earth’s Lungs are on Fire.” The title refers to forest fires that ravaged the Amazon rainforest, which produces a whopping 20% of the world’s atmospheric oxygen. But the fires endanger more than the planet’s lungs—they threaten our lungs.

Smoke from the 2019 Amazonian fires reached the city of Sao Paulo, located almost 2000 miles away from the Amazon (Source: NPR).

The health risks of Amazonian fires are global in scale, but the Amazon’s frontline communities feel them most acutely. Take the example of Apyterewa Indigenous Land, an area that witnessed the second highest deforestation rates across Amazonian Indigenous communities in 2019.

Researchers first looked at the biggest driver of forest fires in Apyterewa: deforestation. They then investigated particulate matter, small particles and liquid droplets in the air. Ash, smoke, and haze from forest fires are associated with high levels of particulate matter, which when inhaled can severely damage the heart and lungs.

Using spatial and image-based analysis, the researchers found that forested areas covered 92.4% of Apyterewa Indigenous Land in 2019—a slight drop from 95.2% in 2016. In the same time period, the percentage of total land used for human activity rose by 3%. This increase corresponds with growing deforestation rates for cattle ranching and agriculture.

Apyterewa Indigenous Land is located in the north-east sector of the Xingu region. The five most deforested Indigenous Lands in the Amazon are found in the Xingu district (Source: Socioambiental)

The spike in deforestation does not come as a surprise. In 2012, an update to the Brazilian Forest Code shrunk the mandatory percentage of legally protected reserves on privately owned land in the Amazon. That put more than 15 million hectares of forest, a landmass the size of Maine, under imminent threat. Environmental deregulation has propelled cattle ranchers to purchase and clear large tracts of old-growth forest, particularly in areas where land is cheap, such as the Apyterewa Indigenous Land.

The Parakanã people, the Indigenous group of Apyterewa, are especially vulnerable to land grabbing. A weak property rights regime and limited access to legal services prevent them from countering illegal incursions.

Deforestation imposes other—more invisible—costs on Indigenous people. The upswing in land clearing has had staggering effects on the particulate pollution emitted by deforestation-induced forest fires. Average annual levels of particulate matter increased by 58% between 2004 and 2019. Rising levels of particulate pollution contribute to degrading air quality in the rainforest, the study adds.

These jarring results strike an uncomfortable chord in our new, pandemic-driven world. According to Dr. Aron Bernstein, the interim director of the Center for Climate, Health, and the Global Environment, “there’s evidence that even short-term exposure to poor air quality [such as that caused by haze from forest fires] could make us vulnerable to respiratory infections,” including diseases like Covid-19.

With more than 5.5 million coronavirus cases, Brazil currently has the third highest number of cases worldwide. And the death rate among Amazon’s Indigenous people is nearly double that of the rest of Brazil. Harvey Fineberg, a doctor and the president of the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, notes that the links between forest related air pollution and disease spread need further investigation but underlined that “the directionality [of higher pollution levels and faster disease transmission] is pretty clear.”

Not all is dire; experts point to clear ways out of the crisis. First, to curb deforestation, the Brazilian government should reinstate the original Brazilian Forest Code. More robust monitoring and enforcement procedures are required to ensure compliance with this environmental regulation. Economic policies should also elevate the value of standing forest above deforested land. However, it is not enough to simply control deforestation. Initiatives that actively promote forest regrowth are necessary to restore a rainforest that once brimmed with plant and animal life.

Given the interlocking environmental and health crises we are faced with, these steps may produce a “dilution effect” wherein greater biodiversity mitigates the risk of virus transmission. Because forest loss itself creates optimal conditions for the spread of pathogens, a healthy ecosystem serves as a powerful protective barricade, and the loss of one, a deadly virus hotspot. To fortify our natural barriers, large-scale fires must be extinguished before they ignite widespread health damage.

The Amazonian fires last summer sent shock waves around the world, triggering visceral responses of horror and loss. Less visible, however, are the lingering effects of this tragedy: air pollution, poisoned communities, and strengthened disease vectors. The importance of an existing, breathing rainforest is no more clear than in the present, with the escalating number of Covid-19 cases worldwide and the apocalyptic state of affairs the pandemic has plunged us into. Preventing the wholesale destruction of the rainforest is our first line of defense against future pandemics. For the sake of our health, we need to rally for the Amazon.

“Our Lungs are on Fire:” Causes and Consequences of Forest Fires in the Brazilian Amazon

Posted on by

In the summer of 2019, flames engulfed the Amazon. 87,000 fires scorched the world’s largest rainforest, home to 30 million people, 40,000 plant types, and more than 430 species of mammal. Images of the fires blazing across large swaths of the Amazon generated outrage worldwide. The costs of losing this precious ecosystem, after all, are profound. Often referred to as the lungs of the planet, the Amazon produces 20% of Earth’s oxygen and sucks in atmospheric carbon dioxide. As natural disaster researcher Jose Marengo remarked: If the Amazon were to collapse, it “would mean bye-bye Paris,” a reference to the Paris Accord’s stated goal to limit warming to 1.5° degrees. Marengo’s warning raises key questions: Why is the Amazon on fire? What actions have been taken to combat this disaster? And what is at stake in this crisis?

The Amazon Jungle in Apui, Amazonas goes up in flames (Source: Aljazeera).

Human factors drove the Amazonian inferno last year. Experts contend that deforestation for cattle ranching, soy cultivation, and mining made for an explosive ecosystem. Forest fires also exacerbate and are intensified by the human-driven climate crisis. Longer dry seasons and higher temperatures are catapulting the “savannization” of the Amazon, a process where forests transform into savanna-like landscapes, often due to fire occurrences in the ecosystem. Savannization triggers a vicious cycle of further forest cover loss and higher intensity flames. At present, the Amazon is a major carbon sink, absorbing nearly a billion tons of carbon dioxide annually. But with rampant deforestation and raging fires, the rainforest is in danger of morphing into a carbon source, one that spews out large quantities of carbon emissions.

The forest fires mean injustices too. Hundreds of Indigenous communities live in the Brazilian Amazon. Large-scale fires threaten to displace Indigenous people and rupture intimate ties between local tribes and the surrounding land. Indigenous groups continue to fight an uphill battle to save the “soul” of the rainforest.

There was a time when Brazil dramatically curbed deforestation in the Amazon Basin. Between 2004 and 2012, deforestation rates plummeted from 27,772 to 4,571 square kilometers per year. Concerted public pressure and an effective government crackdown slowed illegal land clearing. In 2015, however, the Amazon saw a spike in cattle ranching, and deforestation began to accelerate.

Brazil’s recent political turnabout has escalated this crisis. Cattle ranchers with stakes in the beef and soy industries hold enormous lobbying power, which they use to challenge environmental regulations. To add fuel to fire, Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro frequently stokes the flames of anti-environmentalism. The president’s woeful environmental record has drawn sharp criticism from the international community. Bolsonaro has fired back, decrying the “lamentable colonialist stance” of the developed world. In light of his nationalistic posturing and wildly controversial claims on the Amazon, activists have christened Bolsonaro the “exterminator of the future.”

For my beat, I will examine the fiery power dynamics shaping the future of the Amazon. I aim to engage with perspectives at the local, national, and global levels. In doing so, I hope to examine the driving factors and consequences of the forest fires, as well as proposed solutions to tackling the disaster. The Amazon rainforest is deemed the heritage of humanity. An effective—and equitable—way out of this crisis is vital. Indeed, the lungs of our planet depend on it.

Soiled Dirt: A Soil Conservation Primer

Posted on by

As if the world needed another environmental crisis to worry about, a 2014 study suggests that if we continue at our current rate of degradation, all of the world’s topsoil will be gone in 60 years. But what is topsoil? And why should you care? Here are some of the core concepts to get you up to speed on the soil conservation movement.

Soils need a healthy layer of topsoil, but this is becoming less and less common (Image Source: Pike Conservation)

 

What is topsoil? And where is it going?

While the phrase “soil conservation” might make it sound like our soils are in danger of extinction like the polar bear, soil conservationists are fighting against something more subtle. Soil is being stripped of its nutrients by commercial agricultural practices and eroded away into nearby bodies of water. That leaves remaining soils unusable by plants and animals that need them. The World Wildlife Federation estimates that 50% of the world’s topsoil has been lost in the last 150 years

When people are talking about soil conservation, usually they really mean topsoil. Topsoil is the nutrient-rich soil located just under any twigs, leaves, or other organic matter that might be on the ground. For many plants, this topsoil is where they find most of the nutrients needed to grow.

How are humans burning through a resource as valuable as topsoil so quickly? Similar to fossil fuels like coal, topsoil can form naturally, but at a pace of only 0.25-1.5 mm annually. Soil accumulation simply can’t keep up with large scale commercial agriculture practices and other land degradation.

What does this have to do with people?

A lot! Humans might think we’re above nature, but our fates are tied far more closely to the dirt than we’d like to admit. Research suggests that agricultural fields’ productivity decreases as soil becomes more degraded. This is a huge problem, especially considering that 95% of the world’s crops need topsoil to grow, and the UN reports that a third of the world’s soils are no longer considered productive.

As if a depleted food supply isn’t a big enough threat, soil degradation also has the potential to speed up the effects of climate change. The organic parts of topsoil that still exist store a huge amount of carbon. If they’re lost, this carbon has to go somewhere, and that somewhere is likely the atmosphere. This will worsen the already dire extent of human-caused climate change.

Can’t we just add more worms?

Sadly for all worm lovers, no. While most of us have heard about the importance of worms, such facts tend to oversimplify worms’ complex role in ecosystems.

Earthworms can have tremendous benefits for soil health, including increasing the amount of nutrients in the soil and facilitating water drainage. But not all worms are created equal. Invasive earthworms have set up shop in the U.S., and eat through organic matter much faster than their native counterparts. Native plants and animals aren’t adapted to these changed soils and may depend on the now-eaten organic matter to survive. These worms threaten forests where they change ecosystem composition literally from the ground up.

Not just forests are in trouble though. These worms spread quickly with human disturbance and pose a threat to farmlands too. Many of the worms sold in bulk for agriculture and composting are non-native varieties. Unless the supply of native earthworms changes drastically, just putting more worms onto fields isn’t going to cut it.

Invasive earthworms look innocuous but can destroy entire ecosystems (Image Source: LTER Network)

 

What can farmers do about it?

A rarity for environmental problems, there’s good news here. Farmers can implement key steps to conserve topsoil.

One simple suggestion: make sure that bare soil isn’t exposed to the harsh sun and eroding rain for long periods of time. There are several ways to make this happen, including leaving some of the inedible parts of crops on the ground after harvest and planting a “cover crop” to act like a blanket for the soil between growing seasons.

Other ways to support soil conservation in agriculture would require a more substantial shift in farming practices, but could lead to a larger shift in soil health. Practices like “strip cropping,” where farmers grow different crops side by side in a field, can prevent erosion with the variety of root lengths that it creates underground.

Growing more than one crop at a time has other benefits too. If plant neighbors are chosen carefully, they can support each other’s growth. This natural supply of nutrients can also help prevent the need for harsh fertilizers, which can mess up both the farmland where they’re used and surrounding areas.

“Strip Cropping” agriculture can help conserve soil long-term (Image Source: Encyclopedia Britannica) 

 

I’m not a farmer—what can I do about it?

Non-farmers can also get involved in the soil conservation movement, albeit on a different scale. Avoid using fertilizers and pesticides on your garden or lawn to support soil health in your own backyard. If your lawn can’t make it without these chemical helpers, consider planting a new species of grass or foregoing the green lawn look altogether.

Urging policymakers to prioritize soil conservation and advocating for sustainably and justly grown produce for all can also help spark conversation about soil conservation locally. Let them know that the idea of soil conservation isn’t new, but it is more relevant than ever.

Regardless of what we do, it needs to happen before the second half of the world’s topsoil is gone for good.