Category Archives: Explainer

Multispecies Ethnography: A Wiki Entry

Posted on by

Multispecies ethnography is a form of ethnography within the discipline of Anthropology. An ethnography is the narrative a researcher tells about a specific group or culture. Multispecies ethnography in particular focuses on both nonhuman and human participants within a group or culture, as opposed to just human participants in traditional ethnography.

 

A multispecies ethnography, in comparison to other forms of ethnography, studies species that are connected to people and our social lives. Species affect and are affected by culture, economics, and politics. [1] 

 

There is no “standard” for multispecies ethnographies because ethnographic work is inherently a personal interpretation of the world that the ethnographer occupies. Truth is relative, so regardless of the ethnographic work, the ethnographer acknowledges their positionality — how their identity and lived experience shapes their interpretation.

 

Existing multispecies ethnographies have focused on animals, plants, fungi, and microbes. One example of such an approach is, Anna Tsing’s The Mushroom at the End of the World. Her book focuses on the prized matsutake mushroom that is foraged by people.

 

Background

The scholar Giorgio Agamben in Homo Sacer speaks about how anthropology has historically regarded nonhuman species as zoe, or “bare life” that is killable. Nonhuman species have been regarded in contrast to people, who have political power, as bios or “political life.” [4] Multispecies ethnography acknowledges that nonhuman species have the potential of holding political power because of the ways that they shape human worlds, so they can be regarded as bios in this framework.1

 

Multispecies ethnography pushes back against the notions of early Victorian Anthropology and early taxonomy that creates hierarchy not just between species, but between people. This idea of hierarchy between different beings still persists today, as many people consider humans as distinct from other animals or species. These hierarchies are problematic within a multispecies ethnographic context, however, because they do not acknowledge that other species are as important as humans.

 

The multispecies approach recognizes that there are agents aside from people, which means nonhuman species have the capability to act although they may or may not do so. The different species that ethnographers work with all have agency, which is the capacity to act. Multispecies ethnography acknowledges that more than people affect the worlds that we live in.

 

Implications

 

The purpose of multispecies ethnography is to expand people’s understanding of the world around us. It accomplishes this by explaining how different species interact and form different, complex relationships with(in) human cultures. 

 

Ethnographers with a multispecies focus help dismantle or interrogate Euro-American epistemologies, or ways of knowing. Compared to disciplines like biology that also deal with nonhuman species, multispecies ethnography seeks to understand the stories involving these nonhuman species.

 

Authors of the discipline

Anna Tsing – Wikipedia (The Mushroom at the End of the World)

Radhika Govindrajan – Wikipedia (Animal Intimacies)

Donna Haraway – Wikipedia (The Companion Species Manifesto)

Elan Abrell (Saving Animals: Practices of Care and Rescue in the US Animal Sanctuary Movement)

Heather Paxson – Wikipedia (The Life of Cheese)

Alex Blanchette (Porkopolis)

Sienna Craig (Horses Like Lightning)

Organizations

The Creatures Collective, founded in 2016, is an organization of scholar-activists whose work overlaps with the discipline of multispecies ethnography. The group is concerned with earth violence, commonly referred to as extinction, as a result of colonialism. Their work relates to multispecies ethnography as some members tell narratives about themselves as people being connected to the nonhuman species around them [5,6].

 

Footnotes:

  1. https://anthropology.mit.edu/sites/default/files/documents/helmreich_multispecies_ethnography.pdf
  2. Human uses of living things – Wikipedia
  3. Ethnography – Wikipedia
  4. Homo Sacer- Giorgio Agamben
  5. https://doi.org/10.1177/2514848620938316
  6. Environmental Synthesis & Communication | Manifesting another Methodology (wellesley.edu)

 

Link to Wikipedia Article forthcoming.

Front Lawns: Mowing & Growing the American Landscape, A Brief History of an American Obsession

Posted on by

Link to original Story Map

The Story Map Text:

From the suburbs of Chicago to the suburbs of New York, our obsession with lawns spans America.

But, why? Why do these spaces carry so much value? How did our obsession begin?

The following events illustrate the story of how lush front lawns— and the devices and practices used to create them— reflect the American Dream of home ownership.

____________________________________

1700

America owes the physical creation of the lawn to landscape designers in England and France. The first lawns were grassy fields enveloping English and French castles — the logic being that castle grounds free of trees allowed soldiers guarding the castles a clear view of their surroundings. Further into the 1700s, European landscape designers began experimenting with concepts of closely, clean-cut grass areas within gardens. Lawns quickly become an indicator of class. Just like today, those with lawns are those who have the financial means to maintain it.

1757

Language matters. The word “lawn” was introduced to the English dictionary in 1757 as a “large clump of dirt with grass.” The creation of this word gave a name to this phenomenon.

1806

Among the first to replicate the European lawn in America was U.S. President Thomas Jefferson. In front of his Monticello estate, Jefferson had a large front lawn designed, simply for his viewing pleasure.

1830

Englishman Edwin Bear Budding invents the mechanical lawn mower in 1830. The design of the lawn mower sets the foundation for quick, efficient lawn management that we know and “love” today.

1841

The desire for lawns to look like putting greens begins in 1841 when Jackson Downing published the first ever American landscape-gardening book. Downing’s popular book told readers that if they ‘improve’ their cookie cutter front lawns, they would ‘improve’ themselves.

1868

Landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted, commonly known as the ‘Father of the American Lawn’, accepted the task to design Riverside, a suburb of Chicago. In the design, Olmsted required that each house be set back 30 feet from the road to allow room for one or two trees and a lawn that would connect to the neighbors’ yard.

1871

With the invention of the lawn sprinkler in 1871, homeowners— the elite few who had running water in 1871— no longer had an excuse not to have a lawn.

1935

Missouri mechanic Leonard Goodall crafted the first power rotary mower in 1935. Caring for a lawn became easier and faster than ever.

1938

Passed in 1939, The Fair Labor Standards Act makes the dream of a 40-hour workweek a reality. With newfound weekend time, many Americans filled their Saturday’s with lawn mowing and watering. While it was not explicitly said, the condition of the front lawn reflected your status and value to your community.

1945

The end of World War II prompted the federal government to finance low-cost mortgages, encouraging builders to construct low-middle class housing. Lawns are used in these new housing developments to recreate upper class suburban residences, drawing more residences into the neighborhoods. Before this, front lawns are reserved for the upper class. Intentional efforts by the government denied housing loans to many people of color, excluding them from living in suburban communities.

1950

The development of new forms of pesticides makes a weed-free lawn possible.

1962

The first prominent anti-lawn advocates emerged after the publication of Rachel Carson’s book, Silent Spring, detailing the harmful effects of the pesticides (being used to keep lawns weed free) have on people, wildlife, and the greater environment.

1966

The Masters Golf Tournament is televised in color for the first time, allowing viewers to see the manicured, bright green grass fields displayed on their TVs at home. In a Sports Illustrated issue following the tournament, the author writes, “having seen what is possible, millions of homeowners feel compelled to go and do likewise.”

2005

Turf grasses, grass used for lawns, become the single largest irrigated crop in America. Lawn irrigation uses more water than corn, wheat, and fruit orchards combined.

2009

Americans spend a record $20 billion in 2009 on lawn care.

2016

In the small town of Cahokia, Illinois, authorities arrested a woman for failing to mow her lawn in accordance with strict municipal lawn-care rules. Both before and after this arrest, there have been other mowing-related legal cases, emphasizing the importance of lawns in American culture.

2020

Compared to state park sites in the U.S. occupying 14 million acres of land, lawns now cover 50 million acres of land in the U.S. That’s a lot of grass.

____________________________________

The legacy of the American front lawn is one we are all familiar with.

Front lawns tell us that with hard work, determination, and sacrifice, anyone can achieve a life of prosperity. Front lawns tell us that we, too can have that perfect, pristine patch of grass.

Front lawns may look perfect, but they obscure a long history of exclusion and environmental damage.

Climate Adaptation: What’s Going On?

Posted on by

 

 

Climate adaptation is a vague concept. It probably sounds a good idea, but you may be a little fuzzy on the details: what types of solutions have been proposed, when and where they’ve been proposed, and what behind-the-scenes work looks like to get these plans enacted, etc. 

Let’s talk about what’s currently going on with climate adaptation!

  1. What places currently have climate adaptation plans? 

Many places have had climate adaptation plans for years. These climate adaptation plans are implemented on smaller, more localized scales. Places with climate adaptation plans include New York City, Boston, Chicago, Norfolk, Santiago, and London. 

Smaller scale plan creation and implementation means that local environmental and economic histories, as well as geographic needs, are taken into account. Though relatively close to each other, Nashville and Memphis, for instance, will have slightly different needs in a warmer climate. 

  1. What do climate adaptation plans look like?  

Because climate adaptation plans need to consider a place’s unique context, no two climate change plans look exactly alike.

 Let’s use coastal cities as an example: flood resilience will be extremely important as sea levels continue to rise globally. Different cities can choose different approaches. Some cities, like New York, may propose building floodwalls as their primary adaptation strategy, while others, like Boston, may primarily consider flood-adapted buildings and elevated landscapes where possible. 

Other aspects of climate adaptation plans have included funding for climate projection research as well as for research into what strategies would be best. Examples of adaptation strategies include increasing the water and energy efficiency of residential and non-residential buildings (London), and green roof technologies to absorb rainwater in the event of future scarcity (Chicago).  

Many climate adaptation plans aim to improve upon existing infrastructures not just because of cost effectiveness (because, you know, it’s usually cheaper to better what you have instead of building something new) but also because it helps minimize present resource use and helps prepare for a future where climate change will probably make resources like potable water a lot more scarce. 

  1. What about places without climate adaptation plans? 

The unfortunate thing about local areas being solely in charge of their own climate adaptation plans means that a majority of cities  simply don’t have them. Without overarching federal legislation, it’s unlikely that every city in the U.S. will have a climate adaptation plan. Considering there’s no worldwide legislative body with the needed enforcement power, the global climate adaptation plan gap could get wider before it narrows. 

The good news is that community organizations and nongovernmental  organizations (NGOs) are working towards bridging this gap. 

An example of a community organization striving to bring about climate adaptation efforts is Communities for a Better Environment (CBE), an environmental justice organization based in California that’s been around since the late 1970s. As climate change has become nearly impossible to ignore, especially for Black and brown communities in California, CBE has started lobbying for sustainable infrastructure as well as launching its CARE program. CBE’s CARE program aims to connect communities with businesses and local governments, in order to identify and pursue community-driven adaptation strategies. 

There are also plenty of NGOs across the globe that aim to spread climate adaptation strategies. These NGOs can be based in a single country or transnational, and tend to have their own funding that they are able use to further climate adaptation goals like plan research and adaptation. The Asia Pacific Adaptation Network (APAN) is just one example. APAN conducts research and provides funding for adaptation and resilience projects across Asian and Pacific nations, from more sustainable agriculture ventures to flood resilience. The Climate Action Network (CAN) is another example. CAN is a coalition of primarily European NGOs that are committed to climate action, both to mitigate the effects of climate change as well as to adapt to future climate. 

There’s still a lot of work to be done with climate adaptation, but the good news is that there is already a lot of progress being made. While we shouldn’t give up on climate mitigation, it’s comforting to know that all hope for the future isn’t lost.

 

Framing Matters: To Use or Not Use ‘Climate Refugee’

Posted on by
United Nations Headquarters entrance, with name on building and lined with international flags.

In 2007 Ioane Teitiota and his wife left their homeland of Kiribati and moved to New Zealand. Although their visas expired within 3 years, New Zealand soon became home, especially as their family expanded to include three children.  

In 2013 Mr. Teitiota was arrested for a traffic violation and threatened with deportation. He applied for asylum, arguing he was a  climate refugee on the basis of the environmental degradation that had endangered his home in Kiribati. 

Unfortunately, he was denied, four times. 

Mr. Teitiota was not the first to have made such a case, nor the first to be denied. He is representative of a community that is largely being ignored and is growing.

But how do courts determine who is or isn’t a climate refugee? And why is it so contested?

Refugees are a protected group.

Mr. Teitiota, and others who made similar claims as early as 2000, were trying to tap into the protections offered to refugees under the 1951 UN Refugee Convention. 

In the agreement, refugees are considered those who due to the “ fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion,” are unable to stay in their country of nationality.

When climate change impacts are tracked, it is clear that they fall hardest on the marginalized communities described in the Refugee Convention. Such communities are also the least likely to be major contributors of climate change.  The disastrous and unequal impacts, pushing people from their homes and falling on vulnerable populations can be considered persecution.

Refugees seeking asylum have been forced from their homelands and are unable to return.  In the case of Mr. Teitiota and his wife, sea-level rise forced them to leave Kiribati.

Under the Convention, refugees are guaranteed asylum and basic rights such as those to family life, education, and access to justice. These protections offer prospects of safety and a new life for those fleeing climate disasters and degradation. 

But things are complicated. 

Refugees are already under-resourced.

For starters, existing refugees are under-resourced. While climate-related factors are quickly passing typical refugee-makers such as war or poverty, there is already an unprecedented number of refugees. Enabling climate migrants to tap into the scarce resources and protections offered to existing refugees will strain the existing system. 

It will also drive competition, as climate migrants seeking refugee protections may struggle to prove the cause of their condition. This is especially difficult since climate change exacerbates existing inequities and tensions (like war or poverty) which are also drivers of migration. So even when climate change is a factor, it may be hidden behind other social or political factors. 

And how do we distinguish which climate events are products of global warming? Such questions and challenges could lead to long and costly legal battles – something asylum seekers have few resources to pursue.

As a part of being under-resourced, existing refugees are also ostracized. The term “refugee” comes with a lot of social and political baggage – so many wonder if climate migrants should pick up the term at all.

Climate refugee designation links the Global North’s climate change negligence with persecution.

One of the benefits of expanding the refugee designation is that it links climate change to persecution. Linking it acknowledges the disproportionate impacts that fall on vulnerable communities and establishes their minimal contributions. 

Such a connection between climate change and persecution formalizes the responsibility of the Global North to the communities impacted by their actions. Persecution implies intentionality, and if nations are aware of the impact of their actions and don’t act to curb them, that is intentional. The current framing of support for climate migrants is seen as merely a social good or charity. It is a duty. The Global North could then be held accountable and required to not only offer asylum to climate migrants but to more drastically curb emissions and stop their overall climate change negligence.

One drawback to the persecution framing is that it portrays climate changes as forcing migration. While that can be true, it is not always the case. There is no sharp division between voluntary and involuntary migration. In most contexts, climate is one of many push factors of migration. Framing migration so one-dimensionally also denies the autonomy of climate migrants, who are able to weigh other factors and considerations.

Refugee status feels like an abandonment of all hope.

Despite the benefits of having a legal acknowledgment of responsibility by the Global North, and the obligation of refugee-designated protections, many would-be-recipient communities are wary of celebrating refugee status. For many, pushing for refugee status for those that choose to flee is the same as abandoning hope for those that decide to stay. Refugee status acknowledges the dire situation, but in a way that can feel dismissive of local efforts to manage the effects of climate change and stay home. 

Requiring rich countries to take in the climate displaced or to offer aid, without requiring them to change their actions comes across as merely imposing a fine – a fine to live as they choose and ignore the consequences. While financial opportunities and legal pathways must be offered, they are not nearly enough to compensate for leaving one’s home, or the ancestral ties and strong community networks it can represent. They cannot just pay their dues, they must reform. 

Why it matters.

As Mr. Teitiota’s story shows, framing matters. Legal status as a refugee can mean the difference between receiving aid or not. Language cannot become the end goal, but it is a useful starting point.

John Tanton: The Founding Father of America’s Anti-Immigration Movement

Posted on by

Photo by Leah Millis

 

The last four years under former President Donald Trump wreaked havoc with immigration policy. From his vicious attacks against Latinx immigrants, to his ban against refugees and travelers from seven Muslim-majority countries, and the horrifying conditions inside ICE detention centers he helped create, immigration issues roiled the country.

So, how did we get here?

To name a single person: John Tanton. Often labeled as the architect and founding father of the modern-day anti-immigration movement, Tanton was a small-town ophthalmologist in Michigan. Although little known, Tanton’s influence in the American political sphere has been immense. A staunch anti-immigration activist, environmentalist, and conservationist, Tanton was a founder and patron to many anti-immigration non-profit organizations throughout the 1980’s and until his death in 2019. He was also a co-organizer and president of the Petoskey Regional Audubon Society and a long-time member of the Sierra Club where he brought forward a proposal for the organization to take an anti-immigrant stance – which was barely defeated in a vote.  

 Tanton viewed overpopulation and immigration as a threat to the environment and to the future of white America – views that are explicitly ecofascist. In his efforts to thwart immigration, he ended up creating a vast loose-knit network of anti-immigration groups and lobbyists, now dubbed the Tanton network. 

 

What is the Tanton network? 

 The Tanton network is chock full of organizations and people who have been incredibly influential in driving the rising tide of anti-immigration sentiment in the United States.

  • Federation for Immigration Reform (FAIR), founded by Tanton, was one of the organizations behind the drafting of the Arizona SB 1070 Bill that allowed police to racially profile and detain illegal immigrants. 
  • Center for Immigration Studies, an anti-immigration think tank, also founded by Tanton, was often cited and consulted by the Trump administration on immigration policy and were even featured in the Trump campaign’s first national general election TV ad. 
  • NumbersUSA, another anti-immigration group founded by a close associate of Tanton’s – Roy Beck – was influential in impeding the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 which would have provided legal status and a path to citizenship for approximately 12 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States. It never passed. 
  • ProEnglish, also established by Tanton, is a nonprofit lobbying organization that supports the English-only movement in their efforts to make English the only official language of the United States.

These are only some of the many organizations that are part of Tanton’s network of anti-immigrant activism. Of the four organizations listed here, FAIR, CIS, and ProEnglish have been designated as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center. 

 

How was Tanton able to do all of this?

With the help of a friend – a very, very rich friend named Cordelia Scaife May. May, a rich heiress and environmentalist, shared many of the same fears as Tanton. She was concerned with population control and believed that the United States was being invaded by foreigners who “breed like hamsters” and would deplete the nation’s natural resources. As a result, the two forged a close alliance. She funded much of Tanton’s projects like FAIR, NumbersUSA, and the Center for Immigration Studies, among others. Despite passing away in 2005, May’s anti-immigrant and environmental efforts live on through the Colcom Foundation, which continues to support organizations focused on immigration reform and population control, allotting nearly $180 million to such groups between 2005-17, including many in the Tanton network. 

 

How far back does this history of nativist, anti-immigrant sentiment in environmentalism go?

Very far back – think the beginning of the 20th century. In many ways, anti-immigrant sentiment, white supremacy, and nativism were part and parcel of American environmentalism and conservation in this era. Figures like Madison Grant (a nature conservationist and infamous eugenicist) and John Muir (founder of the Sierra Club) were advocates for the conservation of wilderness and harsh critics of non-white “others” who they saw as threats to the natural spaces they sought to preserve. 

Environmental concerns emerged again against the backdrop of the publication of The Population Bomb by Paul Ehrlich in 1968. Although Ehrlich has now acknowledged the book’s oversight and the need to affirm human rights within the environmental movement, his book still fueled anxieties of an impending worldwide famine caused by overpopulation. Garret Hardin’s “The Tragedy of the Commons” article, published in the same year, also stoked fears of population growth and the depletion of natural resources. Unlike Ehrlich, however, Hardin has spoken at length that his position “is that this idea of a multiethnic society is a disaster” and to “restrict immigration for that reason.” 

Sounds a bit familiar, no?

 

Will Tanton’s racist legacy continue on into the future?

It just might. Ecofascist positions which blame immigrants and people of color for environmental harms have emerged within more extreme right-wing factions like the alt-right. Though still in the minority, the growing influence of ecofascism as a violent political faction is not to be underestimated. 

As for the future of anti-immigrant discourse – it might simply be the same old, racist rhetoric that we’ve been accustomed to hearing from Tanton’s network. Only this time it might be under a green banner. 

 

 

 

 

It’s in their genes: A genetic biocontrol explainer

Posted on by

Pink bollworm larvae (source: U.S. Department of Agriculture)

The pink bollworm is a small invasive insect that plagued U.S. cotton harvests for a century. Just by eating seeds and fibers, the pink bollworm larvae led to tens of millions of dollars in lost crops and pest control.

But, thanks to genetic biocontrol and other invasive species management strategies, these pests are now fully eradicated from U.S. cotton- producing areas, as of 2018.

Keep reading to learn more about genetic biocontrol and how it helped stamp out the pink bollworm and how it can help address other invasive species.

So, what is genetic biocontrol?

Genetic biocontrol focuses on how individual organisms and their genes can be used to control populations of invasive species that pose a high risk to their environment. When invasive species specialists release individual organisms with certain genetic qualities, like sterility, the species will stop reproducing. This keeps harmful invasives from multiplying.

How does it work?

The general strategy is that individual organisms of a species will either already have a gene or be scientifically altered to have a gene that will disrupt the reproductive process. Then, these individuals will be introduced into the general population. Once they mate, there are two possibilities: 1) the gene keeps the individual from reproducing or 2) the individual can reproduce but passes on the gene so its offspring will not be able to reproduce.

The scientific techniques used to modify individuals varies. Some can involve actually editing genes (similar to genetically engineered organisms) and some use different processes, like radiation.

One of the oldest is the sterile insect technique. Using this method, scientists create males that are sterile, and therefore unable to reproduce, by exposing them to gamma radiation. If a wild female mates with a sterile male, no offspring will be born, eventually leading to the population declining.

This technique has been used for a variety of species. The most successful application was with the screwworm, a parasite known to feed on live animals. The species was fully eradicated from the U.S. in 1966. This method was also used for the pink bollworm.

Another, newer technique is gene drives. This strategy is a form of genetic modification where a specific gene can be engineered so it is always passed on to the offspring.

If there was a gene drive for infertility, the first individual with the gene drive could still reproduce because the gene is not yet activated. But, its offspring would be unable to reproduce because the gene for infertility would now be activated. It takes several generations for the gene drive to fully spread through a population.

So far, this method has only been used in experiments but many in the conservation technology community are excited about its potential.

What species are genetic biocontrol used for?

The typical targets of genetic biocontrol are insects. It has also been used on fish, amphibians, and rodents.

Because insects can have a lot of offspring at once, their populations can grow extremely fast. This makes it especially challenging to curb the spread of invasive insects. 

Additionally, these bugs cause major problems for public health and  agriculture.

The main threat insects pose to public health is spreading disease. Vector-borne diseases, or human illnesses carried by other living organisms (like insects), result in over 700,000 deaths globally each year.

Asian Tiger mosquito (source: Center for Disease Control)

For example, the Asian tiger mosquito, an invasive species in the U.S., is known to carry West Nile virus and eastern equine encephalitis (which some might remember an outbreak of in 2019).

Using genetic biocontrol, invasive species specialists can keep these insects from reproducing, which would decrease risk of disease transmission.

Invasive insects also have significant economic impacts, particularly on agriculture. Approximately $13 billion in crops are lost to invasive insects in the U.S each year. 

In order to address these losses, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has spent $670 million on projects to protect crops and other natural resources from “plant pests and diseases.” It is unclear why this number is much lower than $13 billion but it could be that the projects do not require an equivalent amount of money to be effective.

Through using genetic biocontrol, the number of pests attacking agricultural crops and the amount of effort put towards stopping them could be decreased dramatically.

What are the risks?

For the sterile insect technique and sterile releases for other types of animals, the main danger is that they require adding invasive species into the environment. The sterile individuals are still invasive so, theoretically, they can cause the same amount of damage as the wild individuals. 

The number of sterile individuals required would vary depending on the species targeted. A study on West Indian fruit flies found a 10:1 ratio of sterile to wild males would be necessary. So, in a population with 1,000 wild males, 10,000 sterile males would need to be added to cause sterility in 80% of the population.

This could be particularly bad if sterilization didn’t work. Not only would the invasive population increase because of natural reproduction, it would also increase because of the introduced individuals themselves.

So far, there have not been complete failures, but this danger has stopped the use of sterile release for some species. For example, bullfrogs are a particular destructive invasive species in Europe. Knowing this, researchers have not used this method in order to avoid environmental damage from adding more bullfrogs.

For gene drives, a serious and ironic risk is that the gene drive could spread. There is a chance that individuals in the target population of the invasive species could move to a different, non-target population of the species and spread the gene drive. Once the gene drive is in a new population, it would act as it is designed and wipe out that particular, unintended population. Because of this, gene drives have not yet been tested in the wild. 

Although these risks exist, genetic biocontrol is an important solution to consider. Not only are there multiple strategies available, it has also been successful across different kinds of animals (i.e. mammal, reptile, amphibian, etc.). Additionally, there is already research being done on how to contain gene drives to target populations. With this research and the continued use of established methods, genetic biocontrol can continue to be a low effort approach to addressing invasive species and the harms they cause.

Everything You Need to Know About Palm Oil and its Place in our Future

Posted on by

 Imagine an oil that can do everything. It makes lipsticks smoother, chips crispier, cookies healthier, and soaps bubblier. This is palm oil, the largest internationally traded vegetable oil. It is the miracle vegetable oil that doesn’t contain trans fats, and its chemical properties allow it to be used in cooking without spoiling, mixed with other oils, and refined to be put in packaged goods.

Despite the positives, the production of palm oil has led to its controversy. It is known as the oil that is causing ecological rainforests to be clear-cut and burned, placing species on the brink of extinction, while also committing human rights violations.

Who is involved in this controversy?

-Environmentalists and NGOs disseminate knowledge about the harmful effects of the palm oil industry to the public, and also rally against big corporations from the retail, manufacturing, and food services industries to source sustainable palm oil.

-Corporations like Unilever and PepsiCo that continue to purchase unsustainably sourced palm oil from companies like Cargill.

-Producers, like in Indonesia and Malaysia, are directly involved in the clearing and burning of forests for palm oil. Around 50% of cultivation takes place outside of the government approved land, allowing for uncontrolled destruction of rainforests. 

-The species that are victims to the destruction of their ecologically rich habitats, some like rhinos and tigers are facing extinction

-Indigenous and local communities that are dependent on the rainforests for food and water but are marginalized by the palm oil industry.

Why the controversy? 

 Growing demand has led to harvesting oil palm at unsustainable rates.

 Oil palm is a tropical tree plant species that requires high rainfall and substantial amounts of sunlight.The trees produce palm fruit bunches, each individual fruit containing 30-35% oil. Oil palms can be productive for up to 25 years before they grow too tall and produce less fruit. Malaysia and Indonesia account for 85% of global production.

 Since production is disproportionately located in tropical regions, so is environmental destruction. Palm oil contributes to 0.5% of deforestation globally, but, it accounts for almost 50% of forest loss  within the tropics. In Indonesia, palm oil plantations are the main source of greenhouse gas emissions due to the clearing and burning of forests. Indonesia is being deforested faster than any other country in the world.

Rapid deforestation is also driving species extinction rates. The Bornean Orangutan’s population has decreased by 80% over the last 75 years due to habitat destruction. They have become victims of the palm oil industry.

The palm oil industry has also been condemned for human rights abuses and poor labor conditions. An investigation conducted by Amnesty International found children as young as eight working on plantations and workers being paid as little as $2.50 a day.

 Are there alternative oils?

 There are several alternatives to palm oil. Soybean oil, rapeseed, and sunflower account for 59% of all the other types of  vegetable oils used.  Palm oil accounts for the remaining  41% of vegetable oil. 

But because palm oil is cheaper to produce in comparison to these other vegetable oils it is increasingly the vegetable oil of choice for most companies. It also has greater yields while using less land.  One hectare of land can produce nearly 4 times more than the other vegetable oils.

Palm oil is here to stay – IUCN report “Palm oil   and biodiversity” June 2018

 

It can also be separated into different consistencies and put into different products. The sheer versatility of palm oil is another reason why it is ubiquitous within a range of different products. 

Can palm oil be sustainable?

Many companies (Ferrero and L’oreal, to name a couple) have pledged to switch to 100% sustainable palm oil.  What does this mean in practice?

 Sustainable palm oil prohibits further deforestation, requires transparency at each step of the supply chain, and mandates proper labor conditions.

 Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) started in 2004 to develop  global standards for palm oil production. This has led to the environmental and social standards that companies must comply with in order to receive certification. These standards include fair labor practices, protection of local and indigenous land rights, and the prohibition of clearing forest.

One of the biggest challenges companies face in sourcing sustainable palm oil is accessibility to RSPO certified oil. The lack of certified producers hinders many company’s efforts to transition to a sustainable supply chain. 

  How can I know if the palm oil I’m consuming was produced sustainably?

“Determining which products contain palm oil, let alone how sustainably it has been sourced, requires an almost supernatural level of consumer consciousness,” according to Paul Tullis from The Guardian, who has covered the world’s dependence on palm oil.

 Tullis explains that consumers in the United States and EU have limited capacity to make changes since Asian countries are the biggest consumers of palm oil.

 Although this can be true, as the issue has grown and drawn public attention, so have initiatives to bring transparency from the supply chain to the market.

 One initiative is the “Palm Oil Buyers Scorecard” compiled by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). The scorecard analyzes 173 different companies, including  retailers, manufacturers, and  the food service industry. The criteria measures the amount of  sustainable palm oil bought from RSPO certified producers, traceability along the supply chain, and investments made in sustainable plantations. 

The scorecard reveals many failures. 

There is still a lack of supplier accountability. Suppliers are insufficient in providing traceability from the plantation to the mills, and less than 1/3 of companies have a policy that guarantees the prohibition of cutting down trees.

Another worry is that despite the 10 years the RSPO has helped source sustainable palm oil, less than half of companies surveyed by the WWF are purchasing 100% sustainable palm oil.

 Aside from the pessimistic findings, 14 companies have proved that it is possible to source 100% sustainable palm oil. Big brands like Ikea, Ferrero, and L’Oréal scored 19 out of 22 and have made sustainably sourced, conversion-free palm oil a priority.

 Is it too late to break the habit? Palm oil will remain a part of our future, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be a sustainable one.

Mayoral Candidate Michelle Wu Envisions a Green New Deal for Boston

Posted on by

Photo: Michelle Wu for Mayor.

 

Boston’s mayoral race will make history this year. All five candidates in the crowded race identify as people of color. Whoever wins will be the first person in city history to not be a white man. 

Right now, polls show that Michelle Wu leads the race. She has distinguished herself as a climate candidate. Recently, she has made headlines for her “Green New Deal for Boston Public Schools”—Wu’s answer to overhauling Boston Public Schools, a hot-button campaign issue. 

 

What is the Green New Deal for Boston Public Schools?

The Green New Deal for Boston Public Schools focuses on transforming public school building infrastructure, as part of Wu’s Community Vision for Boston’s Students and Families.

Today, the school system represents nearly half of Boston’s municipal emissions. Wu’s plan places Boston Public Schools at the center of her plan to reduce city carbon emissions and achieve carbon neutrality. 

Schools already provide critical social services and community functions, including education, childcare, and meeting spaces. Using school spaces for a broader variety of community activities would consolidate municipal functions to fewer buildings and parking lots. 

Environmental justice will guide Wu’s proposed transformation of school infrastructure. Schools with disproportionately high populations of students of color, particularly those near airports or major highways, would be prioritized in the creation of healthier infrastructure.

Wu’s plan would also reduce transportation emissions by electrifying school buses, creating walkable routes to schools, and providing students with free public transit passes. 

 

What is Wu’s broader climate plan?

Wu’s Boston Green New Deal & Just Recovery Plan, announced in August 2020, aims to address both climate justice and the Covid-19 pandemic recovery together. It strives to show how cities can be leaders in combating inequity. 

“Ultimately,” reads the report, “a Green New Deal for Boston would seek to mitigate the threat of climate change, attack poverty, and economic inequality, close the wealth gap, and dismantle structural racism at the scale necessary for a Just Recovery from the devastation of this pandemic.” 

Along with the overhaul of Boston Public Schools, the plan contains sweeping recommendations to enact climate and social justice-centered policy. 

These include a “justice audit” of internal city processes, an Urban Climate Corps and green jobs program, and divestment from fossil fuels, gun-manufacturing, and prison industries. 

The plan also highlights transportation and food justice. Transportation justice means increasing accessibility and public health through fare-free and low-carbon public transit. Food justice policies, focused on supporting community gardens and land trusts, are motivated by a belief that “universal access to nutritious food is fundamental for public health, and economic opportunity, as well as social resilience in the face of climate change and natural disasters.”

While a majority of candidates in the race have endorsed some form of just climate action, only one other candidate has released a comprehensive plan. In a recent interview of the candidates, Wu was the only one who promised to take climate action in her first 90 days.

 

What does this have to do with the federal Green New Deal? 

Wu’s Boston Green New Deal is inspired by Alexandria Ocasio Cortez’s Green New Deal resolution. Recognizing that national progress on the proposal has stalled, Wu’s plan seeks to imagine a way forward with cities at the wheel.

The Boston Green New Deal shows how the national proposal has changed the conversation about climate solutions at all levels of government. Wu’s hope is that “cities can take even more immediate action to shape a more just and sustainable future.” 

The de facto slogan of the federal Green New Deal is “millions of good jobs and a livable future.” Green job creation is at the heart of Wu’s plan for Boston, too. Wu’s plan would create jobs in the green energy sector, establish an Urban Climate Corps, and provide green jobs training to communities historically left out of the renewable energy economy. 

Similarly, the federal Green New Deal prescribes creating green infrastructure through transforming housing policy. Legislators at the federal level have introduced a vision for transformative green housing policy that focuses on renewable electricity and climate resiliency in public housing. Wu’s plan, adapting the framework to Boston’s needs, extends that approach to include cooperatively owned housing and community land trusts. 

 

Have other cities passed similar plans?

Wu’s is the first comprehensive and local Green New Deal plan. But politicians and community activists have been working towards similar ideas for the past several years.

New York State’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, enacted in 2019, comes the closest (though at the state, not the city, level). The historic law committed the state to reduce emissions, create jobs through a clean energy transition, and prioritize public health in marginalized communities. 

In 2019, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti released an update to the city’s sustainability plan. The plan made new recommendations for meeting the city’s aggressive climate goals through economic and social transformation, which Sierra Club bloggers called “the Green New Deal in practice.” 

In Portland, Oregon, a community-organized referendum established the Portland Clean Energy Fund. The fund, now underway, uses a corporate tax to provide money for “environmentally-friendly job creation and sustainable building projects that will benefit low-income people and people of color.”

 

What this means: localities can lead

A Green New Deal is unlikely to pass at the federal level anytime soon. The Boston Green New Deal reflects just how deeply the federal proposal has shaped climate solutions moving forward. While Congress remains stalemated by partisan politics, Michelle Wu, if elected, will show how cities can take the lead.

It’s a bird! It’s a plane! It’s… a baseless conspiracy theory. Here’s what you need to know about the chemtrails conspiracy.

Posted on by

Photo by Erik van Wees

What are chemtrails? 

First and foremost, chemtrails don’t exist. 

But Suzanne Maher disagrees. Maher is the founder of chemtrails awareness group Bye Bye Blue Sky. According to her website, chemtrails are toxic compounds sprayed into the atmosphere to “direct and control our weather for military purposes and global domination.” 

She sees the evidence in the wisps of white exhaust from planes criss-crossing the blue sky, lingering, and dissipating into a thin cover of clouds. According to chemtrail believers, this exhaust is laden with compounds like aluminum, barium, and strontium that’s intentionally being pumped into the atmosphere.

Maher’s billboard on display in Woodstown, New Jersey. Photo by Sharon LePere.

In reality, the trails left behind airplanes are just condensation, or contrails. When hot, moist engine exhaust hits cold, high-altitude air, condensation forms, the same way you can see your breath in the air on a cold day.

What exactly is the chemtrail conspiracy, and where does it come from?

People are drawn to the chemtrails theory for a variety of reasons. Some think the chemicals are controlling the weather. Others think they’re controlling our minds. Regardless of the specifics, chemtrail believers see a sinister government plot in the clouds.

The most popular and recent version of the theory posits that the chemicals are being sprayed into the atmosphere to block out the sun and slow global warming. This idea might sound familiar if you’ve heard of solar geoengineering. David Keith, a leading geoengineering researcher at Harvard, is investigating the potential of albedo modification; his team proposes that injecting sulfate compounds into the atmosphere to reflect some sunlight back into space, like chemtrails allegedly do, could save us from climate disaster. But their work so far is entirely speculative; there is no active testing or implementation of albedo modification. Keith also reminds chemtrail believers that “the Internet is filled with people who are completely sure about stuff that just isn’t true.” 

Still, a 2016 study in Nature reported that 20-30% of Americans thought the chemtrails theory was “somewhat true.” 

The most compelling conspiracy theories always have a grain of truth. The U.S. started experimenting with cloud seeding in 1946. Cloud seeding introduces compounds to the atmosphere to induce precipitation, but nowhere near the scale that chemtrail believers would have you think. A 1996 paper from the U.S. Air Force speculated about how weather manipulation could be used as a military tactic. Though this work was purely speculative, internet forums of the late 90s became the breeding grounds for accusations that large scale weather control was already underway. 

How did this theory gain traction?

Open platforms like YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter make information (and misinformation)  accessible to everyone with an internet connection.

Despite scientists emphatically rejecting the chemtrails theory, the majority of popular YouTube videos about climate modification actually embrace and spread the conspiracy theory. Facebook groups and Twitter help circulate false information about chemtrails. Most people don’t scroll through their feeds with a critical lens. Many take such misinformation at face value.

The Trump era did wonders for fake news and the conspiracy-minded; widespread mistrust of the government and media makes people susceptible to believing in a sinister plot to control the masses. On the left, die-hard environmentalists are quick to believe that the government is destroying the planet. Instead of following predictable party lines, chemtrails unite people from all walks of life.

Even though the evidence against chemtrails is overwhelming, many Americans still believe in them. That has consequences.

What are the dangers of the chemtrails conspiracy?

The most immediate consequence of the chemtrail conspiracy theory affects legitimate geoengineering researchers. Chemtrail theorists have hijacked the terminology of geoengineering research because of the similarities in proposed albedo modification projects and the alleged implementation of chemtrails. 

Geoengineering is already controversial. The effects of albedo modification are under researched, and a lot of people, including climate scientists, worry about interfering with environmental processes. The chemtrails theory asserts that large-scale geoengineering projects are already underway, recklessly endangering our health and our planet. This misguided belief has contributed to anti-geoengineering sentiment and researchers like Keith are stuck cleaning up the mess.

The chemtrails conspiracy theory is also a gateway to general mistrust and paranoia. If the government and scientists are conspiring to secretly control the global climate, what else could they be hiding? 

Perhaps the most dangerous part of the theory is how it mirrors the fundamental truth of climate change in a terrifying fun house sort of way. By continuing our reliance on fossil fuels, the government and corporations really are pumping toxic compounds into the atmosphere that are harming our planet and our health. By focusing their energy on the fake plot, conspiracists misdirect action away from the real problem.

How can conspiracy theories be countered?

Swaying hardcore chemtrail believers is hard– maybe even impossible. Mainstream reporting on the science that disproves the chemtrails conspiracy takes an overwhelmingly condescending tone, which only strengthens the conviction of conspiracy believers. Dedicated believers like Maher only seem to double down when faced with criticism. 

Still, the chemtrails theory might have had its day in the sun. Google searches for chemtrails peaked during the 2016 election cycle, and the uptick this year is mostly attributed to Lana Del Rey’s new album, Chemtrails Over The Country Club. 

Like many of us, geoengineering researchers hope that we can restore our trust in science. Staving off climate disaster requires innovative solutions and early geoengineering studies show a lot of promise. It might not even work, but I prefer an optimistic future to a false reality.

What You Should Know About Biden’s EPA

Posted on by

 

Photo: Gage Skidmore

 

“A cry for survival comes from the planet itself. A cry that can’t be any more desperate or any more clear.” President Biden made clear in his Inaugural Address that addressing environmental degradation would be a high priority for his administration. Repairing an EPA weakened by the Trump administration will be key to making that happen, but just what kind of EPA is Biden inheriting from the Trump administration before him?

 

How did Trump change the EPA?

In a word: rollbacks. During his term as President, Trump completed 98 rollbacks of environmental policy. Most of these involved the EPA.

EPA rollbacks under Trump left critical wetland habitats unprotected and weakened limits on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants and vehicles. Rules on the disposal of coal ash and other air pollutants were eroded. Rollbacks allowed facilities that pollute the environment to emit more hazardous materials without fearing that the EPA would find them in violation of rules.

The Trump EPA reduced inspections of polluting facilities, and even gave facilities advance warning of inspections, lessening their effectiveness.

Trump’s limitations on inspecting facilities that pollute and weaker rules to enforce added up. The number of EPA cases against polluters plummeted under the Trump administration.

Trump also made it more difficult for the EPA to make new rules with an arbitrary “one in, two out” executive order requiring the EPA to rescind two rules for every new one implemented. 

We are already seeing the consequences of Trump’s EPA. Deaths due to air pollution in the US have increased, at least in part because of weakened enforcement on air pollution. 

And none of this includes how Trump set the nation back in addressing the global climate crisis!

 

What has Biden’s EPA done so far?

The rollbacks are being rolled back, and progress is being  made- but slowly.

Biden issued an executive order directing agencies to “hold polluters accountable”, signaling that the EPA may get its enforcement groove back. 

He has also revoked some Trump-era executive orders that hindered the regulatory role of the EPA, including the “one in, two out” rule.

The Senate confirmed the appointment of Michael Regan, former head of the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, as EPA Administrator. In his former role, Regan focused on environmental justice and increasing inspection capacity — areas that were not a priority for the Trump administration.

Immediately upon taking office, Biden established a White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council within the EPA. This demonstrates a renewed effort to address the  disproportionate harms that environmental hazards pose to marginalized communities in the US.

 

What does Biden want to accomplish for the environment?

Biden has centered his environmental agenda around job creation. The American Jobs Plan, announced on March 31, but not yet put before Congress, reflects this.

The American Jobs Plan  focuses on improving physical infrastructure. Environmental health will improve as infrastructure improves, at least in theory.

Under this plan, transportation policy would get an overhaul. Federal funding for public transportation would double, so transit systems could hire more employees, serve more riders, and keep cars off the road, reducing emissions. 

The government would make massive investments in electric vehicle production, making American transportation more compatible with sources of renewable energy in the long term. 

The plan also includes investments in developing resilience against climate-driven disasters like hurricanes.

Provisions for improved utilities aim to put the nation on track for carbon-free electricity by 2035. Buildings all over the US, especially those used for public housing, are slated to be retrofitted for energy efficiency.

The plan also calls for the creation of a Civilian Climate Corps to get more Americans working in climate resilience and conservation efforts while bolstering labor unions.

The fate of this $2.2 trillion plan rests with Congress. The Biden administration is meeting with leaders on Capitol Hill to drum up bipartisan support. Biden hopes to have the plan passed by this summer.

 

What if the plan doesn’t pass through Congress?

Luckily for the Biden administration, some of what is included in the American Jobs Plan can be accomplished by executive order.

Some of what is not possible through executive order is possible through corporate action, according to John Kerry, Biden’s Special Envoy for Climate. For example, the transition from gas and diesel to electricity-powered vehicles looks inevitable, and companies are planning for the electric future accordingly. The biggest companies in America are moving towards a greener marketplace, and “no politician in the future is going to undo this.”

 

What does the American Jobs Plan have to do with the EPA?

If passed as proposed, the American Jobs Plan would give the EPA the funding necessary to accomplish long-held environmental goals. 

The American Jobs Plan includes $45 billion to replace all of America’s lead water service lines. This would mean that no community in the US ever suffers water-borne lead poisoning again. 

Other water infrastructure is up for an overhaul, too. $56 billion will be offered to states, tribes, and communities in grants and low-cost loans to revamp waste, storm, and drinking water systems.

Funding these projects is good for environmental and economic health, as evidenced by the 300,000 jobs created over the last two years by EPA water infrastructure programs. 

The plan also includes $5 billion to clean up contaminated Superfund and Brownfields sites, and to develop the workforce necessary for cleanup. 

Surprisingly, school buses are another target of the EPA under the American Jobs Plan. The plan provides for 20% of yellow school buses in the US to run on electricity instead of diesel. This would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve student and driver health.

 

Between reversing  Trump-era environmental rollbacks and implementing the measures of the American Jobs Plan if it passes, the EPA under Biden has a lot of work to do. As American lives are lost due to environmental dangers and the climate crisis looms, getting the job done is more important than ever before.