The alarming rate of deforestation occurring within the Leuser ecosystem might drive the Sumatran orangutan to extinction. It’d be the first of the four great ape species to go extinct.

Prayugo Utomo, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

The Leuser ecosystem (pronounced “low-sir”) is one of earth’s most ecologically rich ecosystems, houses over 105 mammal species, 352 bird species, and 95 reptile and amphibian species. It spans six-million acres across the northernmost tip in the provinces of Aceh and North Sumatra, Indonesia. Its lowland rainforests, alpine meadows, and peat swamps form Southeast Asia’s largest carbon sink. And it provides 400 hundred million Acehnese people with ecosystem services such as fresh water and disaster mitigation.

The rapid destruction of rainforest has destroyed homes of some of the world’s most endangered species. 85% of the critically endangered Sumatran orangutans live in the Leuser. 

The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) recognized the Lesuer as “the world’s foremost irreplaceable protected areas”. 

But since 2011, The Leuser  has been listed under UNESCO’s “World Heritage in Danger” due to the ongoing destruction.

In addition to being protected as a World Heritage Site, it also has special legal status under the Aceh provincial government, which prohibits activities that threaten the forest, such as development and cultivation. 

Unfortunately, these protections have not kept the palm oil industry at bay. Weak governance and poor monitoring have allowed for oil palm growers to invade the protected areas — as of 2019 1.1 million acres of the Leuser had been deforested (over a million football fields).  

I first found out about the rapidly disappearing Leuser when I was a senior in high school in 2018. A series of images described the crisis: swaths of green forest engulfed in fire, an orangutan that laid limp in the arms of an Achenese local…. It’s 2021 and the imagery has not changed. 

The growing global demand for palm oil has been driving corporate interests to continue to deforest  this ancient Indonesian territory to turn its resources into profit — an all too familiar story. 

Palm oil can be found in most packaged foods, soaps, baked goods… just check the nutrition label. It might even be hiding under a different name. Palm oil’s ubiquity has to do with the fact that it’s the cheapest vegetable oil and it doesn’t spoil.

The work of NGOs may be the best defense for the protection of habitats and conservation of the Leuser. 

NGOs are playing an active role in assisting Indonesia’s local governments in conservation efforts and law enforcement. 

Global Conservation aims to protect and conserve the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra through their initiative “No cut, No kill”. Their priorities over the next few years include wildlife habitat protection, removal of illegal plantations, better forest ranger patrolling, and lobbying and legal actions to better enforce the legal protections of the Leuser ecosystem under its designation as a national park. 

One of Global Conservation’s biggest goals is to close up to six illegal palm plantations. Holding small and large scale oil palm producers accountable will help make clear that cultivating oil palm without proper permitting will be prosecuted. With the support of the European Union, other national governments, and foundations like the Leonardo Dicaprio Foundation, Global Conservation aims to raise  $10-20 million in support of these goals. 

Though a small part to a greater whole, NGOs have been playing an important role in protecting and advocating on behalf of the Leuser ecosystem and the thousands of species and millions of people that depend on it. NGOs like Global Conservation’s capabilities of gaining international attention from other countries, celebrities, and spreading awareness is key to long term success in saving the Leuser.

The bad news: Planting trees in cities won’t save us from climate change.

The good news: Even though planting city trees won’t save us from climate change, it can help our most vulnerable communities adapt to its impacts. (To be clear, planting trees in forests won’t save us from climate change, either, but apparently it’s easier to do that than to just… reduce fossil fuel emissions.)

As cities around the world shore up their plans for urban forests and mass tree-planting initiatives gain traction, it’s hard to hear that these efforts are ineffective in the fight against climate change.

I’m a budding ecologist, enthusiastic tree hugger, and member of a generation staring down the barrel of unavoidable climate catastrophe. I want to hear good news as much as anyone–in fact, I started writing about urban forestry because it seemed like a beacon of hope amid a sea of depressing environmental news.

I desperately want to believe that planting trees is the answer to climate change. But recent research shows that, despite the fact that city trees do store carbon and absorb airborne particulates, city trees can’t save us from climate change or air pollution. This was surprising to me—so many arguments in favor of planting city trees focus on the capacity of urban forests to remove carbon, or their ability to reduce air pollution. These functions of city trees are what make them attractive climate mitigation solutions. But, as it turns out, urban forests aren’t cut out for the job.

The problem is a practical one: there isn’t enough room for trees in cities, nor enough time for them to grow. This means that no matter how much carbon or particulate matter a tree planted in a city takes up, it won’t make a dent in the huge amount of emissions and pollution generated by that city. A few trees here and there can’t keep up.

Seems bleak, right? Yes, but here’s the important thing: planting more trees in urban areas, though it can’t stop climate change, can definitely help adapt to its impacts as well as reduce tree inequity.

Implementing nature-based solutions for climate change adaptation must be a crucial component of achieving climate justice—ensuring that the communities who contribute least to climate change aren’t the ones who suffer the most from it.

Centuries of oppression against Black and Indigenous people of color have culminated in the unequal distribution of neighborhood trees we see today (as well as nearly every other case of environmental racism). Historical redlining and segregation have left low-income communities of color with far fewer trees and a lot more heat than their white and wealthy neighbors. Tree inequity today didn’t happen overnight—it’s the inevitable outcome of racist housing policies, rooted in systemic oppression, that perpetuated the race and class privilege we see today.

Increasing tree canopy cover by planting more trees in disadvantaged neighborhoods is crucial for achieving climate justice and adapting to the worst effects of climate change. Image credit: Jordan Wong

This is where climate adaptation comes in, and it’s here that urban forestry offers its most meaningful benefits. Rising temperatures, exacerbated by the urban heat island effect, and more frequent natural disasters are some of the best-known effects of climate change. Planting trees in strategic locations can help to cool hot neighborhoods, avert stormwater runoff, and provide health benefits to residents beyond just reducing pollution. These represent tangible, local-scale climate adaptation strategies to help build resilience in the communities that need it the most.

Beyond building cities that are resilient to the impacts of climate change, I find hope in the idea that taking care of our urban forests can take us one step closer to taking care of our planet and one another.

Where does this hopeful path lead? I look to speculative science fiction for inspiration when real life seems too bleak—like the lush greenery and futuristic skyscrapers of Wakanda’s capital city in Marvel’s Black Panther. In these fictional societies, humanity has proven itself capable of living within our ecological limits with the help of technology, and even managed to heal the land we live on.

For those of us sadly living here in reality with a shortage of advanced sci-fi technology, utilizing urban forestry for climate adaptation is relatively low-hanging fruit. Taking care of our urban forests certainly isn’t the only thing we need to do, but it can be our first step toward an environmentally just future.

“Live staking” – planting tree clippings that will become full-grown trees to restore an eroded river bank in Tennessee (Source: Tennessee Wholesale Nursery)

When I envision addressing climate change, like many of you, I picture planting trees. Planting trees became a theme in my college years. In North Carolina, we planted hundreds of “live stakes”, or tree clippings, along eroded river banks. From these eroded river banks in North Carolina to deforested fjords in Iceland and mined mountain tops in Haiti, I’ve seen first hand the need for reforestation around the world. 

Even President Donald Trump thinks it’s a good idea. He initiated the Trillion Trees Initiative global coalition ー including the World Wildlife Foundation, BirdLife and the Wildlife Conservation Society ー seeking to protect and regrow 1 trillion trees by 2050. The Bonn Challenge is another global goal-setting initiative with 61 countries pledging to restore 350 million hectares of forest by 2030.

Because trees absorb significant amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, many see them as nature’s allies in the fight against climate change. But that is not always the case. While there are numerous benefits to planting trees, there are both right and wrong approaches to planting. When ill-informed planting occurs, it can cause more problems than solutions. 

Black locust reforested hills in Loess Plateau, China (Source: The Conversation)

Take China for example. With help from online shopping company giants, Alibaba and Alipay, the Chinese state government pledged to increase forest cover 42% by 2050. One initiative was a  top-down reforestation project that planted black locust trees in the Loess Plateau. They cultivated black locust plantations in natural grasslands to prevent soil erosion and desertification. But they did not foresee that the black locust trees would suck up 92% of annual rainfall and leave only 8% for human consumption. This led to a decrease in cropland and a lack of clean water runoff into the Yellow River Basin, hindering access to a safe water source many communities rely on. 

In contrast, Costa Rica offers a story of hope. The country was once covered by 75% rainforest, but pasture-driven deforestation decreased forest cover by 35-50%. To address this loss, it became illegal to cut trees without government approval in 1996. A year later, the government introduced Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) ー a program funded by taxes on fossil fuels. PES rewards farmers who contribute to sustainable forestry and environmental protection. Pedro Garcia is one such farmer committed to a life of ecological investment. To combat deforestation, he converted part of his cattle pasture into a densely forested wildlife haven to provide shelter for native species of flora and fauna. Ecotourism is now an important supplemental income that increases the economic value of preserving such habitats. Since the government intervention, nearly 60% of Costa Rica is covered in forests again. This much progress would have been more difficult without people willing to take individual accountability. When government action is focused on a micro scale reforestation can be effective.

Agroforestry in Costa Rica – from forest to rice field back to forest (Source: World Economic Forum)

Another alternative to large-scale reforestation is agroforestry. By planting trees and crops together, farmers create economic and environmental opportunities for their land. Aldo Sánchez is another Costa Rican farmer and he plants banana trees that provide shade for his cacao plants. Within three years, he transformed his land from barren cattle pasture to a luscious green sustainable growing environment. Small-scale action by individual farmers has been instrumental to revitalizing the forests of Costa Rica that were destroyed in the early 20th Century for coffee and sugar cane plantations. Persistent effort from farmers like Mr. Garcia and Mr. Sánchez has made all the difference.

China offers a cautionary tale. Planting conducted by non-community-based actors often lacks ongoing management. Because people from outside of the community endeavor to establish new forests, planting sites often lack ongoing management with poor monitoring of potential ecosystem imbalances like excess water absorption. Actors need to better understand the ecosystem, climate, and the composition of native tree species to minimize adverse outcomes. Looking to Costa Rica for guidance we see what is possible with smaller scale action. Proximity to the reforestation site facilitates a better understanding of the land, its history, and what does and does not work in the ecosystem. Local initiatives, natural reforestation after land abandonment, and agroforestry are promising smaller-scale alternatives that counter the top-down narrative. After cropland abandonment in Puerto Rico and Spain, native vegetation and tree populations successfully regenerated on their own. Contrarily, agroforestry can successfully revitalize forested landscapes by balancing reforestation with crops, rather than in the absence of farming. Ultimately, whether it is individual, local, or country-wide action, reforestation must be specific and small-scale.

This year, the Amazon rainforest witnessed the worst fire outbreak in the last decade. Acute drought conditions in part intensified the fire emergency, but at the center of this crisis is astronomical rates of deforestation. Behind escalating environmental degradation are familiar culprits: unrestrained cattle ranching, soy cultivation, mining, and illegal logging. National discourse frames these activities as necessary in a country undergoing a snail-paced recovery from the 2015 recession. On his campaign trail, Brazil’s far-right president Jair Bolsonaro pledged to turn the Amazon into the “economic soul” of the country.

However, research is mixed on the economic benefits of large-scale land conversions for cattle ranching and agriculture. A study on land use in the Amazon biome revealed high levels of educational attainment, income, and life expectancy in areas with soybean centers. Yet such progress is often short-lived. Growth in the Amazon tends to follow a boom-and-bust cycle of development: Deforestation produces accelerated progress followed by precipitous drops in profit once natural resources dwindle.

How can the Amazon reduce dependence on these unstable and increasingly unsustainable economic systems?

A promising alternative to cattle economies is decentralized, locally based bioeconomies. The bioeconomy concept lacks clear definition; it encompasses everything from sustainable industrial processes to biology-based businesses. In the Amazon, bioeconomies envision new agriculture models built on traditional knowledge and conservation, as opposed to destruction, of the Amazon’s rich biodiversity. By harnessing the economic potential of renewable biological resources like Brazil nuts, acai berry, and cocoa, bioeconomy initiatives generate employment for the Amazon’s rural and urban communities, populations that have long struggled against some of the highest poverty rates in Brazil.

Bioeconomies benefit both consumers and farmers. In Mato Grosso, local cooperatives sell Brazil nuts for $4 a pound, three times cheaper than the cost in large cities. And the acai berry, hailed as a superfood, is making major inroads in the global economy. Yielding a profit of $1 billion a year, the acai berry industry provides job opportunities for more than 300,000 producers in the Amazon.

Sustainable farming and industrial processes that tap into the Amazon’s vast biological reserves boost environmental protection and economic growth (Source: Innovation News Network).

So why aren’t more cattle ranchers turning to bioeconomies? One explanation is poor infrastructure. For all the engineering feats in the Amazon, there are few roads connecting rural areas to cities. Local farmers, therefore, lack access to the necessary refrigerated transport and supply chains to expand biodiversity-based businesses. High upfront costs also make it harder for cattle ranchers to transition to sustainable farming.

More fundamentally, however, is the question of whether bioeconomies can rival Brazil’s mammoth cattle and soybean industries. For scientist Carlos Nobre, the answer is clear: Bioeconomy products reap $3,3000 per hectare per year, and soy and beef, $183 per hectare per year. High value bio-industries are simply more productive than intensive soy agriculture and cattle breeding. Yet Brazil is the world’s largest beef producer. Brazilian beef exports stood at $7.449 billion in 2019. Bioeconomies have to be scaled up considerably to compete with the rainforest’s dominant industries. Doing so requires nothing short of “an industrial and scientific revolution,” said Nobre.

To this end, the Brazilian government should enact policies that drive economic transformations in the rainforest. For one, investments should be redirected from cattle ranching to biodiversity-based farming. Economic incentives first catalyzed growth in what was then Brazil’s nascent cattle industry. Similar financial schemes may spur development and expansion of bioeconomies. Government oversight is also vital to the crackdown on illegal land clearing. Between 2004 and 2014, strong enforcement of environmental protection contributed to a 70% drop in deforestation rates. Efficient enforcement of environmental legislation coupled with financial incentives could alter economic structures in the Amazon region, and help pave the path for bioeconomy products.

But Bolsonaro’s administration is mired in corruption and political controversy. Ruralistas, a powerful agribusiness lobby, exert disproportionate influence on congressional decision-making. This presents a significant bottleneck to structural change in the Amazon. With little political impetus, the Brazilian government is unlikely to take environmental action on its own.

Here, the international community has a key role to play. Global investments, such as president-elect Joe Biden’s proposal to amass $20 billion to protect the Amazon, and donations from the Amazon Fund, an international mechanism to raise money for forest preservation, can finance infrastructure development in the Amazonian interior. International markets should also be leveraged in this effort. The Amazon’s beef and soy industries are growing more responsive to economic and social pressures, including the global outcry against poor environmental standards in agricultural production. Economic drivers such as consumer demand, trade partnerships, and international collaboration could similarly propel innovation in the Amazon’s bio-industries.

Ultimately, however, the Amazonian crisis demands a reckoning with ideas of progress itself. Without growth that centers on people over profit, inclusion over exclusion, and environmental protection over destruction, the expansion of bioeconomies could turn into another tragic tale of exploitation in the Amazon basin. In a region trapped within cycles of poverty and degradation, equitable and sustainable development is the need of the hour.

Yep, you read that right. Using a fake Christmas tree this year might actually be the environmentally conscious thing to do. It may be surprising to hear the approach I’m taking in the age-old argument between buying real or fake Christmas trees. However, before you clap your hands over your eyes and start fa-la-la-la-la-ing to drown out my article, consider that the health of our forests and the viability of future Christmas trees may be at risk. 

Meet the elongate hemlock scale, an invasive insect whose population is snowballing in New England’s Christmas trees and threatens to spread across the East Coast. Humans are unwittingly playing a large role in that spread. By shopping locally, inspecting our trees, and properly disposing of them, or by using a fake Christmas tree, we can reduce the spread of the elongate hemlock scale. 

Tree branch infested with elongate hemlock scales. Source: Minnesota State Department of Agriculture

Elongate hemlock scales, native to Japan and China, are tiny insects that feed on the sap of plants and steal the fluids and nutrients the tree needs to be healthy. The brownish-yellow pest can usually be found on the underside of tree needles, latched on with mouth suckers, and covered in a protective waxy substance. They spread during the “crawler” phase of their life cycle when they can move around on trees. They transfer hosts through contact, by being digested and moved by birds or other animals, or even by being blown to a new host on the wind. 

For most Americans, long-past are the days of taking a trip to a national forest to chop down your own tree. Nowadays, people prefer convenience when picking out a living room companion. Thus, the creation of Christmas tree farms. The majority of Christmas trees supplied to the Northeast are grown on farms in North Carolina and then shipped to sellers in different states. Here’s the bad news: elongate hemlock scales have started to invade southern East Coast states like North Carolina. The invasion, previously contained to New England forests, could soon be shipped to locations down the east coast and further into the midwest. 

The worst part of the growing Southern infestation is that the elongate hemlock scale can have two staggered life cycles each year with warmer winters. This means that the crawlers are a year-round issue. When sellers import Christmas trees from states like North Carolina, trees with active crawlers are introduced to the system, furthering their spread. The terrible confluence of these factors makes elongate hemlock scales extremely likely to spread this holiday season.

Selecting fake Christmas trees could be extremely beneficial towards stopping the spread in the long run. Usually, the argument for buying real Christmas trees over fake ones goes like this: buying real trees helps support Christmas tree farms whose trees provide habitat and serve as a carbon dioxide sink. Buying fake trees creates a demand for more fossil-fueled plastic and requires transportation from far away countries where the trees are manufactured, incurring large carbon emissions in the process. These points are still valid, however, this year buying real trees can also cause massive ecosystem disruption. Using a fake tree this Christmas might protect your option to buy real Christmas trees in the future. The best choice would be to purchase a second hand or thrifted Christmas tree to minimize the carbon footprint. 

However, if you do plan to chop your own tree or go to a local Christmas tree farm, be sure to check for signs of an invasive species infection in the tree. Elongate hemlock scale tree invasions are usually identified by having yellowing branches and a thin crown of the tree. In severe infestation, you should also be able to see the larger brown female scale on the underside of the needles.  

Yellowing branches of an elongate hemlock scale infested tree. Source: eXtension 

Another way to prevent the spread is to deck-the-halls with local plant species. Even though it may not be a traditional decoration, native-plant inspired homemade wreaths, centerpieces, and lawn decorations can be a fun and unique project to make with family members. 

If you do decide to buy a real tree, when the sad day comes to take it down remember to dispose of it responsibly. Most areas have a recycling program that will properly dispose of any invasive species that might have gone undetected in the tree. When infested trees are abandoned, the elongate hemlock scale crawlers can move to new areas and infest additional local nature that could have remained undamaged. Find a Christmas tree recycling program near you here. If you do find an elongate hemlock scale, please report it to your state government’s department of agriculture website.

Close up image of a female elongate hemlock scale under a tree needle. Source: Penn State Extension Website

This holiday season, I urge you to consider using a fake Christmas tree to stop the spread of this pesky pest. Although elongate hemlock scales are the Grinch this Christmas, decorating responsibly will help keep everyone’s holiday season merry.