Category Archives: Recent Research

In Pursuit of the Perfect Lawn

Posted on by

Mow, water, spray, repeat. 

Americans spend up to six hours per week maintaining their lawn: trimming grass, obsessively spraying God-knows-what to keep the grass a bright green, turning on sprinklers at the crack of dawn— But why? What is it about these small patches of grass that fascinates Americans? 

An eco-anthropological dissertation completed at Salve Regina University analyzes this very question, incorporating historical, critical, and socio-cultural perspectives. The study, which focused on one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in Rhode Island, found that American front lawns are sites of both “socially vapid” and “ecological hazardousness” occurrencess. 

To make sense of this, let me introduce you to two houses you would probably recognize. The first house (House A) has a front lawn with long, lumpy, untended brown-ish grass. The other house’s lawn (House B) is the opposite: it is a perfectly manicured, eternally green,weed-free carpet.

Let’s begin with the dissertation’s first  argument: lawns as sites of socially vapid events. That is to say that lawns are spaces where boring, unproductive, and unimportant social interactions happen.

The analysis collected data from 23 front lawns within the town of Barrington, Rhode Island. Among other questions, the study asked participants the following: Do you believe the appearance of your front lawn is a reflection of you? 68% of participants believed it was.

In American suburbs, lawns exist as extensions of the owner, measures of their character, and furthermore, extensions of American values.

The 30 billion dollar lawn industry in the U.S. thrives on the role lawns play in forming   reputations with one’s neighbors, independent of any human interaction— this illustrates lawns as sites of “socially vapid” occurrences. 

This makes sense to me.  Families on my street always treated the residents in House B noticeably better than House A. House B treated their lawn as a prized possession and in turn, they too were treated as such. House A, on the other hand, was often the gossip on the street. People would say, “I can’t believe they let their lawn look like that” or “It’s not that hard to mow your lawn” or “Their lawn makes us all look bad.” 

The goal of the dissertation is to investigate potential for a culturally viable and ecologically beneficial front lawn. Written through an exploration of people’s perception of and relationship with front lawns, the dissertation introduces larger themes important to the American lawn: individualism, control, nationalism, wealth, value, and controlled versions of nature. Understanding these themes are critical in reimagining what our front lawns can look like and how we can interact with them. 

From this perspective, we can see what House A and House B’s lawns share. Neither lawns are sites of play, recreation, community gathering, or lounging. They are, as the study describes, “socially vapid.” This goes hand in hand with the second argument: lawns as sites of ecologically hazardous events.

Unsurprisingly, 80% of the study’s participants reported using a gas lawn mower, a machine already ecologically harmful in its own right. Of the 80%, 62% of participants reported using riding gas lawn mowers, the most polluting of lawn mowers. 

Given the fact that our current system of lawn management and lawn use is ecologically hazardous and socially vapid, reimagining our connection to and affinity for the suburban front lawns is necessary to enact sustainable, effective change. 

So, it turns out that House A is in fact less ecologically hazardous than House B. While House A leaves their lawn alone, House B’s lawn is mowed using a riding gas lawn mower.

This study shows us that the solutions to fixing our lawns can’t be found in a “top five” list. Instead, the study emphasizes that fixing our lawns is really about reimagining much deeper structures rooted in the very fabric of American culture. 

 

Climate Migrants as Drivers of Change

Posted on by
A group of protesters is displayed with climate activism posters held high.

We are living amidst some of the largest political gatherings in history, such as the Black Lives Matter protests, the climate strikes, and the International Women’s Day marches. Whether we have participated ourselves or seen activism online, it is clear that the recent burst of social activism is reshaping the world. 

The factors that push people to participate vary widely, but a recent study explores how negative climate experiences may spur people into social activism.

A recent study, “Environmental Migrants and Social-Movement Participation” published in the Journal of Peace Research (2020), investigated whether exposure to climate catastrophes affected engagement in social movements.

Social movements were considered “purposeful, organized groups” which pursued a common goal towards creating change. The study focused on changes related to migrant rights in urban areas.

The researchers surveyed 2,416 respondents from three cities in Kenya. Kenya was chosen for its high urbanization rate and exposure to extreme climate events. Respondents were divided into three categories, those that migrated from rural to urban environments for non-environmental reasons, sudden environmental events, gradual environmental shifts, or both sudden and gradual environmental causes. 

Sudden events included tropical storms and floods. Slow-moving events included drought or salinization

The takeaways from this Kenya-based study are much broader. This makes the research more widely applicable, but it is also important to remember that it is not entirely representative.

Unsurprisingly, those affected by both the sudden and gradual events were the most likely to engage in social activism. This was particularly true of peaceful participation, and partly true for potentially violent protests.

Migrants who had solely experienced sudden events were more likely to engage in activism, but only when peaceful. This was hypothesized to be because the immediacy of sudden climate events leads to less time to cultivate grievances.

The level of activism among migrants affected by gradual events was no different than activism among non-climate-related migrants. 

Having been forced to leave their homes, environmental migrants often consider themselves uprooted. This may be true of all migrants, but the forced nature of environmental crises makes it even more stark, especially among those who experience sudden and gradual events. As a result, the researchers explain, environmental migrants may be less willing to “adjust to their new location.” Such a perspective encourages a mindset of “victimhood, injustice, grief, and anger.” Such valid and intense emotions promote “risk acceptance” and translate well into activism.

Climate migration and the rising numbers of climate migrants are often associated with global security threats. There is a lack of knowledge to back up that claim, but politics and how climate migrants are discussed reinforce it. This can dangerously lead to the people – and not the context they are escaping – being portrayed as the issue. 

This danger is especially true as anti-immigrant sentiment rises worldwide. That is the context in which the study exists and yet it does not address that risk, or take cautions to account for the harmful ways that its research can be used.

As we have seen with recent protests, whether movements are framed as marches or riots, lootings or activism, is a matter of perspective. While social movement participation will increase, both virtually and in person, it is up to us to shape how it is framed.

The increased participation could, as it is in the study, be framed as disorder. The slightly increased willingness to participate in actions, even when they may turn violent, could be highlighted and made alarming.  

Alternatively, we could be excited for the incoming wave of activist-minded community members. We could see their ability to identify fault lines as crucial ways to improve our systems. We could frame their willingness to engage as valuable energy to push us to collectively enhance our policies and support migrant populations. 

This is an optimistic perspective. Such an inclusive and welcoming framework is difficult to imagine amidst anti-immigration rhetoric, tense borders and strained migration facilities. However, migrant communities will continue to enter and shape the United States. If we, as those settled in the States, do not acknowledge this then immigrants will enter and without support their activism could be framed as or even become social unrest. 

The research reminds us to be careful and conscious in our framing of incoming migrant populations. Recognizing the reality of incoming numbers of climate migrants, allows us to more adequately prepare, include and respond to them. 

Social movements – and society overall – must be inclusive of climate migrants so that their energy and passion can help drive change. Unpacking and responding to migrant grievances to make tension useful must be a priority.

This research is also a reminder of the importance of strengthening the coping capacity of communities affected by climate change. The important lessons of the study, that inclusion and engagement of migrant populations are needed – but the ultimate ideal is that people are not forced from their homes.

Ecofascism: what it is and what it isn’t

Posted on by

Photo by Marcos del Mazo

 

Browsing through the bookshelves of your local bookstore you might just have the misfortune of coming across James Deilingpole’s The Little Green Book of Ecofascism: The Left’s Plan to Frighten Your Kids, Drive Up Energy Costs, and Hike Your Taxes! In it, he details the sinister plans of the ecofascist left to strip away human rights, wealth, and freedom, all in the name of its irrational and authoritarian mania for nature.

Seems a bit much, but these sorts of attacks against the left are not at all unusual. Many right-wing political commentators and pundits have often framed the left as authoritarian and fascist. These exaggerated fears of a left-wing dictatorship even helped win voters for Trump in Miami-Dade County during the 2020 Presidential elections.

By definition, fascism is a far-right movement and philosophy that is characterized by its adherence to a one-party state with overt authoritarian control and a belief system that places the nation and race above individuals and foreigners. Ecofascism follows the exact same script – albeit through an environmental context.

Despite the continued use of the term “fascist” and “ecofascist” by many right-wingers to describe their leftist counterparts, it sits on the right side of the political spectrum. This is especially the case for the more extreme far-right movement, the ‘alt-right’ or alternative right, whose fascist talking points have veered into ecofascism.

What gives then? Why does the right continue to peddle ecofascism as a leftist stance?

Well, it isn’t a new trick. Michael E. Zimmerman’s classic 1995 article, “The Threat of Ecofascism,” details the ways that the right paints, in very rough and broad strokes, its leftist counterparts as nature-loving, environment-obsessed fascists.

Leftists, in their firm criticisms of capitalism, stand in the way of some of the most central tenets of American culture – liberty and private property. As a result, progressives’ relentless lobbying for environmental regulations and legislations are often met with opposition from those on the right who see it as an authoritarian intrusion on the free market.

Conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and anti-ecological groups like the “Wise Use Movement” were quick to describe environmental activists as ecofascists in the 1990s when environmentalists supported a “takings bill” that threatened private property rights. The bill met heavy opposition from many conservatives and right-wingers.

This same right-wing reactionary backlash can be seen today in response to one of the most contested pieces of environmental legislation yet: the Green New Deal. The resolution, sponsored by Rep. Alexandria-Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Senator Edward Markey (D-MA), which calls for a transformation of the economy to address climate change and inequality, is often described as an authoritarian, militarized, and fascist resolution by many on the right. Sean Duffy, a Fox News contributor and former Rep. of Wisconsin, writes “Green New Deal supporters don’t care about the climate – they want control over your life.” Such attacks perpetuate the same false narratives that describe the left as fascists intent on seizing tyrannical control to achieve their environmental goals.

But as Zimmerman made clear in the 1990s and remains true today, labeling leftists as “ecofascists” set on authoritarian control is a misguided accusation. The left’s push for regulations for the sake of the environment does not point to (or at all resemble) the sort of xenophobic, fascist environmentalism that enveloped Nazi Germany or that is currently making gains in alt-right groups. Zimmerman notes that although the measures that some on the left may impose for the sake of the environment might be severe, they certainly aren’t fascist.

What is fascist is the alt-right’s fascination with the so-called restoration of dignity and purpose for the white race above that of others. This form of fascism, in turn, intersects with ecology (hence the “eco” in “ecofascism”) in ways that call for the exclusion of immigrants so as to protect against the degradation of the environment of the homeland by “outsiders.” The descriptions offered by Zimmerman of ecofascism and a racially united white race against the imposing “other” – immigrants and people of color – rings true for ecofascists on the right more than they do for environmentalists on the left.

Yet right-wingers continue to point the ecofascist finger at leftists for supporting existing environmental regulations and new proposals, such as the Green New Deal.

As the pressures of climate change up the ante and climate change denialism starts losing credibility, the right’s full-embrace of ecofascism might just be at hand. When that happens there can’t be debates and confusion surrounding terminology but a united front that will call ecofascism out for what it is and not for what it isn’t.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Connecting Social Justice to Climate Adaptation

Posted on by

Photo by Jeanne Menjoulet from Paris, France, Creative Commons Attribution 2.0.

 

 

Historically, mainstream the environmental movement and organizations like the Sierra Club have excluded people of color and the issues they face. In the past few years, these organizations have worked to include more people of color and environmental justice issues in their platforms, but there’s still a lot of work to be done. The inclusion of people of color and certain buzzwords like “diversity” and “inclusion” on their websites isn’t enough. It’s not enough to talk about social justice– it has to be put into practice. 

Climate adaptation plans put forward by governments can sometimes be the same way. In order to be wholly successful, climate adaptation plans need to center marginalized people and the challenges they face.

But why does social justice matter for climate adaptation? 

It matters because people who contribute the least to climate change often face its worst effects, and as the climate crisis worsens, this gap will only widen. Natural disasters will devastate poorer communities as they’ve always done, but climate change will intensify the effects.

Because adaptation plans are implemented through government processes, they often risk reinforcing racial and class disparities. One study that looked at various cities across the globe found that land and resource-use regulations generally affected the poor much more negatively than their wealthier counterparts. Poor people and/or people of color were consistently more likely to be displaced for the sake of land conservation and less likely to be able to access natural resources like food and potable water. 

To make matters worse, even with government-implemented plans, a significant amount of funding for climate adaptation projects comes from the private sector. This means  climate adaptation can be seen as a private, even exclusive, enterprise that isolates poor folks even more. While the joint efforts of private firms and governments can be seen as a positive for governments, for poor people and people of color who are frequently excluded from the leadership of  those two groups, such coalitions are often formed without them and their voices.

An example of this can be seen in Santiago, Chile,  one of the most climate-vulnerable cities in the world. Low-income folks in Santiago are much more likely to be affected by water shortages and extreme temperatures than wealthier Santiago residents. Despite the fact that regional  climate adaptation programs like Climate Adaptation Santiago, started in 2010, and the Climate Adaptation Plan for the Metropolitan Region of Santiago, launched in 2012, were implemented, they ignored the city’s nearly one million low-income residents. 

 Framing climate adaptation as only an issue of resilience without centering social justice tends to simply preserve the status quo. The way an issue and its possible solutions are presented affect the way they’re received and implemented. This means that for those on the “bottom” of the socio-economic ladder, there’s not much to gain in supporting climate adaptation policy. Santiago’s low-income residents experienced this firsthand when policies meant to conserve water resulted in less access to potable water for poor folks. 

Much of the research that looks at adaptation policy implementation focuses specifically on a top-down approach. In this approach, policy creation and development are separate from implementation, and marginalized voices are rarely heard in these processes because they’re rarely present. As with resilience framing, this approach only perpetuates the status quo, even with the best of intentions. Policies are enacted without considering how they affect everyone, and they end up having unfortunate unintended consequences because they don’t consider how people are affected. 

But most if not all problems have solutions. Socially just climate adaptation policies can correct these disparities, while also having the potential to increase the legitimacy of and chances of success for climate adaptation initiatives. 

Marrying social justice and climate adaptation isn’t just a distant possibility, but is something that organizations are currently working towards. 

Three main strategies can advance socially just climate adaptation: 

  1. actively include marginalized people in such efforts, who can then act as decision-makers in and for their communities, 
  2. acknowledge and understand the roots of social injustices, and 
  3. periodically evaluate implemented plans to ensure that no aspects of these plans, such as timeframe, impede social justice or overlook occurring injustices. 

A new framework that builds on these strategies is the advocacy coalition framework. This framework focuses on implementation of climate adaptation policies being in the hands of those who are directly affected. When governmental authorities make decisions regarding institutional rules, resource allocations, and appointments pertaining to a government policy or program, coalitions or marginalized people can represent their communities and assist in refining policy as needed. The resulting decisions come with a set of policy outputs, including intended and unintended outcomes. Policy is not just passed and taken for granted, but evaluated periodically by such coalitions so that marginalized voices are continuously heard, throughout the entire policymaking process. 

Applying this framework to cities like Santiago or organizations like the Sierra Club would allow them to reckon with their not-so-inclusive pasts (and presents) and strive towards a more just future, not only for themselves, but the planet as a whole. 

 

Like it or Not, Palm Oil is Here to Stay

Posted on by

In recent years, palm oil has been blamed for everything from clear-cut rainforests to homeless orangutans. Consumers are urged to help save ecologically dense rainforests by boycotting products containing palm oil and demand for alternatives. 

But what if the alternatives are even worse? 

 Despite palm oil’s bad reputation amongst vegetable oils, a recent analysis published by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), an international organization that promotes conservation and the sustainable use of natural resources, finds that palm oil is here to stay and sustainable practices need to be implemented.

The study conducted by the Palm Oil Task Force analyzes the relationship between increasing deforestation rates driven by palm oil development. The increasingly commercialized palm oil industry has led to the loss of vital animal and plant species that contribute to the functioning of rainforest ecosystems.

The study aims to better inform actors within the palm oil supply chain, ranging from producers, to corporations, of the devastating environmental impacts while also providing insight on how the industry can be made more sustainable.

 Despite its consequences, palm oil is not going anywhere. Global demand for vegetable oils is the fastest growing commodity today. Palm oil demand is expected to grow 1.7% each year until 2050. The study found that demand for palm oil is projected to be especially high for countries with a growing middle class. Urbanization will spur demand for packaged goods, creating a growing market for vegetable oils. Palm oil will play a significant role in meeting these demands, especially in growing Southeast Asian countries, due to its high yields and low cost of production.

The IUCN report mentions a strategy of maximizing yields on existing plantations. Although maximizing yields will help in keeping up with demand, it will also make palm oil more attractive. Higher yields and higher profits can lead to an increase in business interests to expand operations, further threatening tropical forests. Tighter governance protecting rainforests from agricultural uses are needed.

IUCN researchers also advocate for the use of sustainable palm oil instead of opting for alternatives. Alternatives can result in greater losses of biodiversity and rainforest because oils like soy and sunflower require more land. This matters because every minute, over three football fields of the Amazon are lost. Agriculture is the direct driver for 80% of tropical rainforest loss— using vegetable alternatives will only drive up this statistic. 

So, what does sustainable palm oil production look like?

 In the past two decades, there have been several environmental governance initiatives that aim to minimize environmental damage throughout the palm oil supply chain. The Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), for example, is a voluntary certification process that holds businesses to sustainable standards. Some standards include no new growing on peatland, no use of fire, and fair wages. Today 19% of all globally traded palm oil is certified by RSPO.  

 Consumer pressure and consciousness can also lead to changes in behavior from businesses. Consumers can apply pressure by purchasing goods that are labeled “RSPO certified” or “Palm Done Right”. Although these certification organizations have been criticized for not being stringent enough, they represent progress by attempting to hold companies accountable and spreading awareness to consumers.

 Protecting our rainforests and the species that live in them is no easy task, especially with the increasing growth in the palm oil industry. These issues demand actions from governments to enact policies and businesses to make informed decisions.

AOC, Sanders Re-Introduce Public Housing Bill, backed by Think Tank Report

Posted on by

Photo: University of Pennsylvania Climate+Community Project

 

During the Covid-19 pandemic, we have all been forced to spend a lot more time at home. But what if the only housing available to you actively put your health at risk? That is the reality for some of the nearly two million people that rely on the U.S.’s public housing system. 

Climate activists believe they have found a win-win strategy that reimagines public housing while also addressing the climate crisis.

On April 21st, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) introduced the Green New Deal for Public Housing Act to Congress. It’s just one component of the recently reintroduced Green New Deal framework. 

This announcement came on the eve of the 51st Earth Day when President Biden publicized aggressive new climate commitments to reduce carbon emissions. Biden’s commitment to reduce emissions 50% below 2005 levels by 2030 is unprecedented in the United States. 

Passing the Public Housing Act would help meet those goals. The Act links revitalizing critical public services with solving climate change—a key plank of the Green New Deal. Housing infrastructure, under this framing, is a climate solution. 

The Public Housing Act focuses on vastly improving social and environmental conditions for the nearly two million Americans that live in public housing. 

“[The Act] is a tremendous opportunity to ensure everyone has a safe, affordable place to call home,” said climate activist Varshini Prakash. Prakash is Executive Director of the youth-led Sunrise Movement, one of the many organizations supporting the Public Housing Act. “[It] advances us towards a new era, where the government invests in good, union jobs empowering people to revitalize their own communities – all while combating the climate crisis.” 

A new study out of the University of Pennsylvania’s Climate+Community Project makes clear just how consequential this bill could be for materially improving people’s lives while also addressing climate change. All public housing would use 100% renewable electricity sources, which would cut U.S. emissions by 5.6 million metric tons—the equivalent of nearly 1.2 million cars. 

Marginalized communities, including tribal areas, would be prioritized for deep retrofits and new construction. And, according to researchers, retrofits would vastly improve indoor environmental quality, translating to better health outcomes for public housing residents. For instance, the plan could reduce asthma rates by an estimated 30% in New York. 

Working towards environmental justice is a priority of the proposal but other elements of the plan are even more visionary. It would create community resiliency centers to support public housing recipients in the case of climate-related disasters like flooding, extreme heat, and wildfires. Centers would include gardens, daycares, bookstores, and grocery stores, all of which contribute to healthier social and environmental conditions. 

Not only does the bill seek to achieve fairness in environmental outcomes, but also in the decision-making process. The Act ensures that public housing residents will have a say in how to spend profits from renewable energy generated by on-site infrastructure like solar panels.

But the report also emphasizes the need for greater funding than expected. The estimated cost of retrofitting and building new public housing to meet the plan’s twin social and climate goals is $119 to $172 billion over ten years, nearly triple Biden’s original proposal of $40 billion. 

Though the plan is expensive, the proposal would have significant economic benefits. Retrofits would save up to $613 million annually in energy costs, and $97 million annually in water bills. Over the course of implementation, the bill would also create nearly 95,000 high-skilled maintenance and construction jobs, with prioritization of union positions and long-term job creation.

So, now that the Public Housing Act has been introduced, does it have any chance of passing? 

It is unclear. What is certain is that the reintroduction of legislation under the banner of the Green New Deal signals the lasting power of that platform, and sets up a huge political battle to come. The Green New Deal for Public Housing Act may prove to be a pivotal moment for Democrats, who are, for the first time in a decade, in control of the Congressional agenda.

The Act is about putting climate at the center of policy-making, and will test whether or not that can succeed in the U.S.

“This is our opportunity to meaningfully address the housing and climate crises, create nearly a quarter of a million good-paying new jobs, and improve the lives of nearly 2 million individuals,” said Rep. Ocasio-Cortez in a recent Instagram post.

What the research makes clear is that legislation like the Public Housing Act that rewrites housing policy as climate policy will be essential to meeting the U.S.’s climate goals. More importantly, it supports the significant benefits that come with rethinking housing policy with social and climate justice at its core.

Geoengineering could save the Arctic, study finds

Posted on by

Image: NASA

The Arctic is our planet’s refrigerator. It’s also warming six times faster than the global average.

The Arctic’s snow and ice reflect much of the light that reaches it, helping to keep the planet cool. As the planet warms, ice melts and the Arctic reflects less light. Warmer temperatures also mean that permafrost, or soil that is frozen year-round, begins to thaw out. When it does, frozen organic matter begins to decay, releasing carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere, which intensifies the greenhouse effect, leading to more warming, which leads to more permafrost thawing and… you get the point. 

This cycle, called permafrost climate feedback, drives the higher rates of warming at the poles. Arctic permafrost contains twice as much carbon as the atmosphere. A melted Arctic would release this carbon into the atmosphere, leading to catastrophic effects for the entire planet. 

So, we need to keep the Arctic frozen. But how?

A study in Nature  by Yating Chen and her colleagues at Beijing Normal University examines a radical solution: increase albedo in the Arctic to prevent warming and permafrost thawing by preventing sunlight from entering the atmosphere. 

Known as solar geoengineering, this strategy aims to mimic the cooling effects of a volcanic eruption by injecting sulfur compounds into the atmosphere. These compounds reflect some sunlight back into space before it has the chance to enter the atmosphere.  

Solar geoengineering is controversial partly because the effects of sulfate injection are under researched. But don’t worry; Chen’s study is just a simulation. By using what we know about environmental processes, Chen and colleagues  built an earth system model that mimics the conditions of life on earth, then manipulate the conditions to predict the future. This study uses a geoengineering model that’s popular because it models a sudden injection of sulfates into the atmosphere. If we embrace geoengineering only as an emergency solution to climate change, sulfate injection will probably happen quickly as a last-ditch attempt to save the world, so this model is realistic.

In addition to modeling sulfate injection, this study incorporates a moderate emissions reduction framework that projects the climate stabilizing at a global average of 1.8 degrees Celsius warmer. This keeps our climate just under the 2 degrees C of warming that has come to represent a point of no return for the global climate. If the climate stabilizes at 2 degrees C, the models predict that 40% of Arctic permafrost will melt. Under moderate emissions reductions, 35% would melt. With the sulfate injections, this figure plummets to just 15%.

Putting a price tag on the Arctic is tricky, but the permafrost climate feedback could result in  $13.8 trillion (trillion, with a tr) in economic losses, even under the reduced-emissions scenario. Sulfate injection would help save about $8.4 trillion. 

There’s still a lot we don’t know about sulfate injection. What are the ecological impacts of more atmospheric sulfur? How would people living in the Arctic, especially Indigenous communities, be affected? What does maintenance look like? What would happen if a solar geoengineering project was suddenly interrupted? 

Critics raise these questions to discredit geoengineering, but the immensely promising results of this study should spark interest in more research using models to explore the effects of sulfate injection. Nobody can predict the future with certainty, but models can give us a pretty good guess. 

There is no silver bullet to stop climate change, but this study shows that the combination of reduced emissions and sulfate injection are key in preventing permafrost thawing. Stabilizing the climate is a daunting task, but the Arctic is a good place to start.

EPA Under Attack: Legacies of Deregulation by Reagan, Bush, and Trump

Posted on by

Photo: US Environmental Protection Agency

 

Donald Trump prevented the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from protecting the environment effectively, but he wasn’t the first US President to do so. In a 2018 paper in the American Journal of Public Health, Leif Fredrickson and colleagues examine the impacts that Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump have had on the EPA.

Why care about this history lesson?

Looking at how these former Presidents used staffing, deregulation, and science to take the EPA apart in the past offers key insights into how President Biden can put the agency back together again today and how to fend off attacks on the EPA in the future.

Let’s look at EPA staffing.

Reagan was the first to hinder the EPA’s mission through staffing. Reagan’s EPA turned down experts with experience in federal government in favor of anti-regulation legislators and industry veterans from fossil fuel companies like Exxon to fill leadership positions. Reagan’s EPA Administrator, Anne Gorsuch, slashed staff by 21% in her two years heading the agency. 

Trump’s EPA took after Reagan when it comes to staffing. The advice of energy executives was prioritized over those of career employees. Trump-proposed staff cuts matched the numbers of the Reagan years, though the Trump proposals did not pass. 

The EPA was sidelined by the anti-regulation priorities of all three presidencies Fredrickson studied.

Under Reagan, deregulation was the name of the EPA’s game. The agency’s Office of Enforcement was dissolved, giving industry less reason to take environmental rules seriously. Reagan’s EPA listened when industry figures complained about regulations such as those phasing out the use of leaded gasoline. It was only after public outcry that the phaseout continued unimpeded.

Bush’s EPA was anti-regulation in subtler ways. Instead of rejecting regulatory action, the EPA avoided having to take action at all by strategically delaying until the chance to act had passed. This was true of chances to strengthen the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. 

Trump took after Reagan with his deregulatory approach to the EPA, but he added his own flair. In an executive order,  Trump required repealing two rules for every new rule enacted, hindering the EPA’s rulemaking ability. Trump’s EPA also repealed the Clean Power Plan, a policy which promised to save lives by reducing particulate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.

These administrations manipulated environmental science to suit their political goals without hesitation.

Bush was, frankly, a nightmare for environmental science in the EPA. Under Bush, industry actors gained the right to challenge scientific analyses, slowing the regulatory process. Bush’s EPA gummed up the works of climate science by playing up scientific uncertainty around climate change and prohibiting agency employees from even mentioning the phenomenon.

Trump combined approaches to science from the Reagan and Bush administrations. Like Bush, Trump obscured climate science in EPA resources and discussions. Trump’s EPA Administrator, Scott Pruitt, planned debates to hash out questions about climate science that have long been settled. Like Reagan, Trump contested the regulation of hazardous materials despite evidence of their dangers. Pruitt overturned a ban on a pesticide that is dangerous to pregnant people and children when ingested in any amount.

Trump seemed like a unique threat to the EPA during his term. In hindsight, he just adapted the worst of Reagan and Bush strategies for his own bombastic brand of governance.

What does all of this tell us about what’s next for the EPA under President Joe Biden?

Just as staffing, regulation, and science can be used to weaken the EPA, restoring their roles at the EPA can strengthen the agency. Biden is already using executive orders to address climate change and return enforcement capabilities to the EPA. How he will “build back better,” as was his mantra on the campaign trail, remains to be seen.

In the long run, no single executive order is going to make environmental health invulnerable to political whims. Nothing is preventing another Trump, Bush, or Reagan from winning the presidency, mismanaging the EPA, and putting our health and our planet’s health in danger. The best we can do is inform ourselves and others on the environmental legacies of our Presidents (as Fredrickson and his colleagues have with this paper) and fight for political candidates who will use the EPA for environmental protection, as it is intended.

Reducing Depression in Cities: Easy as One, Two, Tree?

Posted on by
Image shows a tree shading the sidewalk in front of a home.
Image shows a tree shading the sidewalk in front of a home.

Recent research shows that city trees can help reduce depression. Photo courtesy of Kimberley Zak (@KimZakPhoto on Instagram)

There are many reasons to love trees, whether in faraway forests or in our own backyards. Even in cities, trees provide a myriad of public health benefits, including mitigating climate change, extreme heat, air pollution, and mental health issues–wait, mental health? 

 

Surprisingly, trees can help with managing ADHD symptoms and reducing stress. Now, recent research published in renowned science journal Nature reveals that city trees can also decrease depression.

 

Researchers in Leipzig, Germany mapped individual city trees with health data from 9,751 adults to examine the relationship between trees and mental health. Researchers assessed the minimum “dose” of trees needed to yield a positive mental health result by looking at the number and type of trees present at varying distances from the home. 

 

The study found that living in a home with trees nearby reduces the risk of depression. Researchers found that the more trees within a 100 meter radius from a home, the fewer cases of clinical depression. Importantly, though this trend held across income levels, it was most significant in low-income households. 

 

While ecologists often place a premium on biodiversity, researchers found that tree diversity didn’t have an effect on depression. Even at close range, more variety in tree species didn’t affect the relationship between trees and depression. Researchers The authors speculate that because most non-ecologists cannot distinguish between tree species, having more trees rather than a variety of different trees is more important for mental health.

 

Distance, though, matters for the positive effect of trees. Beyond 300 meters from the home, trees had little impact on antidepressant prescriptions. For everyone to benefit from trees, they  need to be evenly distributed throughout neighborhoods, not only concentrated in a single green space.

 

Planting trees along streets, close to people’s homes, will have the greatest positive effects for low-income families. City planning and tree planting that facilitates this incidental contact with trees can create a lot of good for a lot of people, without a lot of effort. 

 

Though this study paints planting trees as a simple solution for addressing both mental health and environmental concerns, there are limitations to consider. 

 

Planting trees isn’t just about mental health–it’s a matter of environmental justice as well. In order to meaningfully apply the results of this study to the US, we need to take into account race and equity.

 

In Leipzig, researchers did not find evidence of a relationship between income level and tree cover, but the reality for American cities is that wealthier neighborhoods almost always have more trees. Urban forestry initiatives must endeavor to remedy this disparity, taking care to avoid green gentrification in the process. 

 

Given that Leipzig is an overwhelmingly white European city, it’s not surprising that the authors weren’t able to consider race as a factor in their study. In the US, however, race is the single most important factor in predicting exposure to environmental hazards, regardless of socioeconomic status. 

 

Even so, the study is a useful starting point for how street trees can be used to improve well-being for everyone. There is now research to support that if we, in our communities, want to take the mental health and environmental crises seriously, then street trees can and should be an integral part of urban infrastructure.

 

Achieving the most important effects of street trees doesn’t have to be difficult or costly. We just have to keep equity in mind. Indeed, as one researcher remarked, the study is really good news for mental health justice:  “You don’t even need large-scale expensive parks: more trees along the streets will do the trick. And that’s a relatively inexpensive measure.” Being happier might be as simple as planting more trees.

 

Can we be more effective at weeding invasives?

Posted on by

Garlic mustard (source: Katja Schulz)

When I was younger, my dad, my sister, and I would often volunteer at the local botanic garden, where we ripped out and chopped up invasive plants like garlic mustard and common buckthorn. This was not easy work, particularly for an eight year old and a five year old.

Invasive plants like the ones my family helped remove have led to the decline of 42% of endangered and threatened species in the U.S.

These plants are so damaging because they do not have natural predators in their new environment. This means they are able to reproduce and spread without any obstacles. This also means people need to continuously remove these plants. Garlic mustard, for example, comes back annually. That patch we spent hours weeding? It was likely back to full strength in just a year.

Had I known this, eight-year-old me might wonder if there’s a way to make sure volunteer days actually keep invasive species from growing back.

Recent research by Maarten B. Eppinga and colleagues reveals exactly that: a better way to weed. 

Using a model and a case study on coral vine (Antigonon leptopus), researchers examined seven different types of patches to focus on removing, such as random patch removal, removal of the smallest patches, or removal of the largest patches.

The study revealed a plant’s reproduction process affected the success of removal strategies. If a plant reproduces asexually (without another plant), certain strategies work better than if the plant reproduces sexually (with another plant). For instance, removing random patches of asexually reproducing plants kept them from spreading but removing random patches of sexually reproducing plants was not as successful.

Using this information, volunteer day planners or anyone else removing invasives can strategically pick which areas of plants to remove. 

Normally people might think targeting the largest patches would be most effective, but, according to Eppinga’s study, the opposite is true. Concentrating on the largest patches is actually least successful at controlling a species’ spread.

Instead of going big, planners could focus on smaller patches of sexually reproducing species or random patches of asexually reproducing species.

Such smart weeding strategies can not only eradicate more species, they can also free up time and supplies. With more time, little kids like my eight-year-old self could be exploring the botanic gardens rather than weeding them. More importantly, though, these newly found resources can be devoted to removing one of the other 4,300 invasive species found in the United States, which, all together, cost $120 billion on average per year in damages.