Catching poachers is difficult. In India, a group of 8-10 armed poachers near the Kerala border managed to poach a Sambar Deer. Wildlife rangers were able to get to the group, but they killed one poacher amidst a crossfire, while the rest fled into the forest at night. Despite the rangers’ presence, having to worry about catching poachers, trying not to get killed, and getting the poached animal from poachers can be overwhelming. Frustrations continue to rise amongst governments, rangers, and scientists trying to catch and punish poachers. Recently, new developments in technology such as apps and cameras have created hope for catching poachers more effectively. 

Gathering evidence to convict poachers can be a difficult  process for officers. The need for efficiently gathering information on poaching incidents is high and urgent. India has seen a decrease in the demand for Rhino horn in recent years, only for this demand to be replaced by the desire for Pangolin scales and Tiger pelts. Nearly 700 Pangolins and 40 Tigers are poached every year in India. 

To combat these incidents, camera traps and drones are being used in regions like Madhya Pradesh, India where Tiger poaching is extremely popular. Infrared technology has been integrated into these devices in order to spot poachers and wildlife based on their temperatures. Drones that fly over covered forests can spot hidden poachers using thermal cameras. Camouflaged camera traps are placed in trees to catch roaming poachers and identify certain wildlife species using AI. Drones and camera traps are important  tools to use in protected areas spanning thousands of acres where poaching is rampant. After all, trying to find groups of poachers at night in thickets of bushes and endless plains can be a difficult task for a couple of rangers.

Drones and camera traps capture thousands of photos and videos. While AI is convenient in helping identify species and poachers, there is still a considerable amount of data that must be analyzed by humans since AI technology can struggle to identify specific traits from distorted visuals. With so much data being collected, it also creates an issue of how quickly the data can be sorted to be used appropriately. 

Despite the existence of this data, it is yet to be combined with other technology that could greatly benefit from the visual data. The developers of the Hostile Activity Watch Kernel, or HAWK have created an application for officers and officials that aims to track poachers. Manu Satyan, a Kerala district forest officer, and Jose Louies, the director of the Wildlife Trust of India recognized that there was a major struggle in catching poachers and predicting where poaching crimes would occur. HAWK gives officials access to a wide range of information such as poaching hotspots, vehicles used by poachers, and ways poachers sneak into protected areas. This information is collected in the field by Kerala wildlife officers and then put into HAWK. Kerala wildlife officers are then able to submit cases with the information from the HAWK database in order to convict poachers more easily. It helps keep poaching data organized and ready to use for court cases. 

    Data taken from drones and camera traps can provide applications like HAWK with visual evidence to use against poachers. On the ground, wildlife officers can input data into HAWK that drones and camera traps may not catch. Drones and camera traps capture  visual evidence and even locations where officers may be able to arrest poachers. Since convicting poachers in court requires evidence, having visual evidence can be critical. The more concrete evidence there is the longer and harsher a sentence will be. 

This could make poachers take the severity of their actions more seriously. 

Such evidence makes it hard for poachers to claim that they accidentally poached an animal.  

Little to no available evidence and weak punishments throughout countries allows for the exploitation of wildlife which must be reworked in order to fully reap the benefits of our current technology. New technologies and systems like HAWK will help track down poachers and lessen the occurrence of poaching. With the integration of new technologies, wildlife will be more protected hopefully leading to an increase in wildlife populations and biodiversity.

A backlash against companies investing in environmental, social & governance (ESG) initiatives has swept through U.S. state legislatures in the past three years. 23 states have adopted anti-ESG-related laws. This backlash has influenced how the general public perceives ESG investing. According to the investment research and rating agency Morningstar, anti-ESG sentiment has already resulted in a pullback of $5.2BN from sustainable funds in the first quarter of 2023.

The anti-ESG movement started when Republican lawmakers accused fund management giants like BlackRock and State Street of pursuing a ‘woke’ investing agenda last year. This ‘woke’ investing agenda focuses on the push for liberal values, considering and evaluating companies based on their policies around ESG metrics, when making investment decisions. The backlash got so bad that BlackRock’s CEO Larry Fink stopped using the term “ESG” altogether. 

A research project on the language around ESG reporting by the MIT Climate & Sustainability Consortium that I worked on this semester found similar trends. Although the project is still in progress, our findings indicate many companies have either eliminated the use of “ESG” or significantly reduced or replaced the use of “ESG” in their sustainability-related reports. 

However, is this backlash against ESG justified? What is anti-ESG really calling for? 

ESG initiatives take into account non-directly-financial information about a company, such as its climate impact and staff diversity. For this reason, it is criticized by some Republicans, such as Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, as prioritizing liberal goals over investor returns. He argues that this approach would harm U.S. companies deemed insufficiently progressive and in turn hinder the wider economy. An anti-ESG sentiment would thus put financial returns first as it rejects measurements from ESG perspectives. 

The label “anti-ESG” may appear to sound like going after financial returns is the end goal, but it’s just part of a larger “anti-woke” and “anti-sustainability” effort, which was summed up by an executive at Morningstar: “Anti-ESG is a proxy for opposition to the spread of ‘liberal values’ in civil society.” Although anti-ESG advocates are arguing for prioritizing financial returns, their actions will slow progress toward a more sustainable future.

In July 2022, West Virginia’s treasurer, Riley Moore, announced that it would no longer do state business with banks such as Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase, both of which stopped financing coal companies. And In January 2023, Kentucky Treasurer Allison Ball placed Blackrock, JPMorgan, and Citigroup on a divestment list compiled in accordance with state law due to their fossil fuel boycott. Ironically, Citigroup is included because of its commitment to expanding ESG investments, yet it is still amongst the largest lenders for the fossil fuel industry. 

It makes no sense to include Citigroup on such a list since it is heavily invested in the fossil fuel industry. Citigroup’s heavy investment in the fossil fuel industry would theoretically make great financial returns, which the anti-ESG advocates state is the most important. However, the fact that it is nonetheless on the list confirms that what the anti-ESG advocates really care about is companies’ claimed commitment to the liberal and sustainable goals that ESG embraces, not their financial performance. 

The anti-ESG campaign is not coming from within the investment industry. It’s coming from conservative activists who oppose things like climate action, diversity, equity, and inclusion policies, better worker pay and benefits, and corporate CEOs speaking out on issues like abortion, voting rights, and gun violence. For instance, a leading effort in the anti-ESG movement, Dan Crenshaw the Texas Representative in Congress, made comments like “regulating climate change is not a government responsibility”. It is evident from the anti-ESG advocates’ actions that high financial returns aren’t the goal, but stopping efforts toward a more sustainable society is.

Brown water extends as far as the eye can see. Homes, businesses, cars, trees, and even a waterpark, are submerged. 

This is what it looked like in 2019 when the small city of Miami, Oklahoma (pronounced My-am-uh) flooded. For the past 80 years since the Pensacola Dam was built, floods like this have devastated the city. 

Today the dam is up for relicensing. If the relicensing is passed with the condition that the water level must be lowered, the intensity of flooding in Miami will decrease. On the other hand, if, as many politicians and vacationers are arguing for, the water level is raised, then flooding will increase. 

Historic Photo of the Pensacola Dam (referred to as Grand River Dam in this image)

[Source: Small Curio]  

There is also another twist. Ten miles away from Miami is one of the most contaminated areas in the country, the Tar Creek Superfund Site. The location of the site means that flooding events not only damage roughly 1500 homes and displace families but the water also carries toxic mine waste, spreading it throughout the city. 

At the end of the 19th century, lead and zinc deposits were identified in the northeastern corner of Oklahoma leading to the Indigenous inhabitants being forcibly removed. For the following 70 years, massive mining operations devastated the area. In 1967, shortly after mining ended, groundwater flooded the abandoned mines and spilled into Tar Creek, contaminating the watershed with toxic waste. To this day, waters contaminated by mine waste flows through the Tar Creek watershed. Yet, on hot Oklahoma summer days, the rivers are filled with children playing in orange stained water or fishing along the banks. 

Orange Water of Tar Creek

[Source: Author]  

Some might ask—if this has been happening for decades, why is it news today? 

The answer hinges on the future of the Pensacola Dam at Grand Lake O’the Cherokees, also known simply as Grand Lake. This relicensing is proposing to raise the water level at the lake for recreational purposes.  

Here is the problem: Increase the water level in Grand Lake and its ability to hold flood waters decreases. Decrease the holding room for flood waters and flooding upstream will become more frequent and intense as a result of the phenomena known as backwater flooding. Increase the intensity of floods upstream and the amount of toxic mine waste entering Miami will increase, resulting in more people being displaced and exposed to dangerous contaminants. 

So why is raising the water level in Grand Lake even on the table? 

The answer—recreation. Grand Lake is an extremely popular vacation spot in Oklahoma with many of the summer homes along its banks owned by the wealthy and influential, including recently retired U.S. Senator James Inhofe. Inhofe himself has been a leading voice in the fight to raise water and has the clout to make it happen. This makes it a battle between wealthy vacationers and residents of towns like Miami who demand the right to a safe home. 

The good news is that the decision has not yet been made. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is responsible for approving the relicensing of the dam. As a government agency FERC accepts comments. Anyone can submit a letter stating why the Pensacola Dam relicensing should not include permission to increase the water level. Doing this is of the utmost importance as relicensing only occurs every 30-50 years. If the water level is allowed to be raised, Miami will be facing the consequences for at least the next several decades. 

The time to act is now. Write in using this link and make sure to mention docket number P-1494 in your comment.

My first memories of nature are from the Arnold Arboretum in Boston. I would eagerly join my aunt on her daily walks at the Arboretum. Here, I learned the calls of robins and chickadees and discovered the sweet smell of blooming lilacs. I would spend hours exploring every nook and cranny in the Arboretum. I still remember the warm, friendly smiles of strangers whose faces gradually became familiar. 

The Arnold Arboretum offered everything in one place: a colorful sea of flowers in the spring, big hills perfect for sledding in the winter, and trails for hiking and bicycling year-round. And the best of it all? It was 281 acres of nature free for everyone to enjoy. 

To the public, the Arnold Arboretum is the historic botanical garden of Harvard University, housing more than 4,000 different tree species from all over the world. To me, the Arboretum was all of that and more — it was also a natural playground and my special hideout from the pressures of growing up.

A piece of the Arnold Arboretum in Jamaica Plain, Boston, MA. Photo by author.

As I grew up, I came to understand the importance of identifying with public places and people in my community. This is a topic that has become important to place-making, which involves community members, city officials, landscape architects, and urban planners working together to create equitable public spaces. Place-making re-imagines public parks as productive community spaces that promote people’s health, well-being, and social belonging. 

One example of a successful place-making project is in Watts, a lower-income neighborhood in Los Angeles. There, residents helped transform a long-neglected and polluted lot into a neighborhood park. With support from the Trust for Public Land, a public-private partnership, residents organized community workshops and provided their input for the park’s design. After six years of planning and strategizing, the residents’ visions for Serenity Park became a reality. 

The park includes an accessible walking path, playground, skate park, exercise equipment, and sheltered picnic areas. Ronald Kartoon Antwine, a Watts resident and former gang member, could not be prouder of their work. “We have a safe haven for kids. We have greenery, which produces oxygen [and] brings a sense of peace.” Although small in size, Serenity Park is a huge victory for Watts residents and a monument to their collective hard work in creating a safe, welcoming place for everyone in the community to enjoy. As Antwine says of the park and his community, “We have prevailed.”

Watts Serenity Park before construction. Image courtesy of the Trust for Public Land

Watts Serenity Park after construction. Image courtesy of EPT Design

Sometimes, however, public parks can bring unseen consequences to local communities. Take the High Line on the west side of Manhattan, New York. The linear multi-use “greenway” park was built on a former elevated railway, intended to transform the once “blighted” West Chelsea district. Now it is filled with luxury condos, restaurants, and art galleries. 

Researchers worry that The High Line is leading to green gentrification, a trend seen in other greenway parks like Chicago’s 606 trail and Atlanta’s BeltLine. Since its completion in 2014, the park has driven a 35% increase in adjacent housing values and generated over $2 billion in private investment surrounding the park. The park attracts more than 5 million visitors per year. 

“Abington House on the High Line,” a 312-unit luxury rental building along the High Line. Image courtesy of Brenton Gibbs.

Visitors walking on the “High Line,” an elevated greenway park in New York in 2015. Image courtesy of @ZinCo

The High Line in the 1970s. Image source: Flaming Pablum

While both the High Line in New York and Serenity Park in Los Angeles have rehabilitated abandoned urban lots, it is clear that the High Line was designed to attract tourists, not serve the neighborhood. The story of Serenity Park shows that public parks can be powerful tools for building community, but place-making strategies must be implemented from the start of the park planning process.

To me, the Arnold Arboretum perfectly demonstrates place-making in a public park, through its free educational programs and guided tours to connect people with nature. It has given my family a sense of serenity and belonging since immigrating to the United States. The Arnold Arboretum will always have a special place in my heart. 

The fact that the Arboretum is, as horticulturist Brendan Keegan says, “free to the public makes it uniquely able to educate Bostonians on the important roles plants and animals play within our broader urban community.” I completely agree. 

Special moments at the Arnold Arboretum:

With the imminent danger posed by climate change, governments and people who care about preserving the environment seek solutions to the most pressing issue of a generation. Market instruments can provide an  efficient way to affect positive change. But the economic tools used to solve environmental problems come with their own host of complications.

Climate change affects normal business functions, like the supply chain or access to energy. It also poses risks for individuals counting on investments to help pay for college or their retirement years. People’s retirement funds or college savings accounts could be at risk if the companies they are invested in are exposed to risks from climate change.

But companies are not held accountable for their exposure to climate change, making it difficult for investors to assess those risks. New SEC disclosure rules proposed in March of 2022 seek to address this oversight by requiring companies to report their exposure to “climate-related risks” and report greenhouse gas emissions, which may impact their business activities.

The carbon disclosure rules remedy a fundamental issue with corporate sustainability practices: many emissions evaluation techniques are inadequately supervised. For example, accreditation groups verify the validity of economic tools like carbon offsets and ESG ratings but consistently misrepresent the environmental effectiveness of such measures, and are not regulated themselves.

ESG analysis measures the ethical standards companies meet, and has exploded in popularity in the last 20 years as a way to measure corporate environmental performance. But ESG ratings are actually based on a company’s exposure to risks, like climate change, not their propensity for environmentally friendly, or even ethical, business practices. Thus, companies like McDonalds can perform terribly from an environmental sense and still receive a relatively positive ESG rating.

Carbon offsets are another common tool companies use to meet emissions reductions targets. The permits can misrepresent supposedly environmentally friendly action. Verra, a nonprofit that administers carbon offset standards, consistently overestimated the risk to forests that allowed the forests to count as carbon offsets. Verra isn’t alone in profiting from faulty practices.  The Nature Conservancy and the Massachusetts Audubon Society have also “protected” forests that are already safe.

Though ESG ratings and carbon offsets suffer from a lack of regulation, the SEC rules aim to  address this key deficit. As a government agency, the SEC has the responsibility to provide centralized, honest regulation to a sector of the economy that remains relatively unrestricted.

The response from large corporations to the proposed SEC rules has been overwhelmingly negative. They are concerned about the cost of performing the analysis for reporting and the legality of mandating disclosure of privileged information. These points have been the main source of contention for companies. But carbon disclosures are essential to informing shareholders of relevant risk. While considerable roadblocks remain, like political opposition in Congress, the proposed rule is slated to become operational in 2023.

Success is slow going, and climate change is ongoing. Time is the biggest barrier to companies changing, but time is also running out. Society needs to provide real, constructive solutions to global warming. The benefit of top down regulation is once the rules go into effect, the policy becomes functional immediately. At the moment, the SEC rules provide the best option for addressing climate change right now, maximizing time and effect.

Twenty years ago, the residents of Cochabamba, Bolivia took a stand against water privatization. Their actions matter as much today as they did then.

Lack of access to clean water claims one million lives every year and almost a quarter of people globally lack clean water access. Water is a human right that all people deserve to have access to, not just people born into wealthy families. The current water management system on a global scale is not working. And now the world is facing a water crisis, half of the global population could be living in water scarce areas by 2025.

In 1999, Bolivia privatized Cochabamba’s water, in the hopes that it would support economic growth. Privatization promotes universal water access by allowing governments with limited budgets to partner with wealthier companies to provide essential services at a lower cost— in theory.

Map of Bolivia with Cochabamba in red

After the Bolivian government auctioned off the water of the Cochabamba region, the price of water began to increase dramatically. Bechtel, an American owned company, won the rights to privatize the water for 40 years with a 15% minimum return on investment. The government was required to privatize water under the International Monetary Fund loan that Bolivia had gotten to stabilize the economy. While the economy was failing and 70% of the population was in poverty, the water bills for the newly privatized water increased by 60% over a few months. That is what started the Water War of Cochabamba.

Citizens protested for months, refusing to pay up to a quarter of their monthly income for water that had once been cheap. Over the early spring of 2000, the government responded by declaring a state of siege. Riot police injured hundreds of protesters, blinded at least two using tear gas and combative tactics, and arrested hundreds of protesters. 

What finally ended the Water War was the death of a 17-year-old student. On an April afternoon, Víctor Hugo Daza was leaving his radio station job. As he made his way home he was suddenly surrounded by protectors, who were being followed by soldiers. As Víctor tried to escape, a soldier shot him in the face. Víctor’s death was caught on camera, provoking outrage in an already frustrated community. 

Within days the Bolivian government canceled the water privatization contract and reinstated the original prices. By terminating the water privatization contract, families in Cochabamba saved over $3.4 million in water charges in 2001. 

Before Bolivia privatized water, the country relied heavily on the concept of usos y costumbres (uses and customs). Usos y costumbres allows the people to develop mutually-agreed upon arrangements for water sharing based on need, not profits. The model, originally from Andean principles of reciprocity and redistribution, empowers local community members to make decisions on water, creating a sense of ownership over water systems. 

Bolivia is not alone in replacing such traditional water management systems with “modern” practices, including modern technology, large-scale infrastructure, and privatization. That has meant replacing usos y costumbres with profit maximization and replicability. 

The Water War protesters chanted “water is life.” Water management systems are key to providing this human right. Instead of declaring one management system as the best for all, there must be more of an emphasis on what is being provided: a human right.