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

[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 21^st 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 20^th 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]

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]

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 21^st century, we do not exacerbate the legacies of one of the worst environmental crises of the 20^th century.

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.

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.