As we trudge through the final month of the year, we come upon a time of reflection. 2020 has been a year of constant surprises, including tropical cyclones. This year there were a total of 56 world wide, breaking global records. With tropical cyclones comes the need to rebuild. Slogans such as “build back better,” that was originated by the Sendai framework for disaster recovery and most commonly used lately by President-Elect Joe Biden, are commonly associated with the efforts post-storm. It refers to rebuilding communities to be stronger and more resilient to natural disasters once catastrophe strikes in order to better endure future disasters. However, governments are struggling to build back better. They are barely even building back.

This year’s cyclones brought devastation and left countries all around the world reeling in their wake. Towards the end of November, Cyclone Gati became the strongest storm on record to hit Somalia bringing two years of rainfall in two days. In India, Cyclone Fani tore through 10,000 villages and 52 urban areas ripping roofs off houses, buildings from windows, and knocking construction cranes onto surrounding homes. After storms run the course on their path of destruction, the recovery process should immediately begin. Rescue and evacuation efforts along with relief efforts to provide adequate resources are key parts to this stage of the process. Almost immediately, weakness in response capabilities begin to show. In places most affected by cyclones, flooding, isolation, and communication inaccessibility make aid efforts difficult.

Historic Cyclone Gati over Somalia (NASA Earth Observatory)

Long term recovery depends on the capabilities of the country’s government and, if necessary external aid organizations. The Somali government, for example, alone may not have the same level of policy for these disasters as a country like the Philippines that is more disaster prone. Even with international aid, cyclone-stricken countries can only do so much. It is the government’s job to know the needs of its people and implement effort with the help of outside aid. If the government’s efforts are lacking, the people suffer.

To examine the efforts of governments, we have to take a step back and look at the fallout of past storms. After Typhoon Haiyan affected 14 million Filipinos in 2013, government attempts to build permanent structures that were more storm resistant fell flat. This led to a resurfacing of vulnerabilities that existed before the storm, despite policies that reflected recovery preparedness. 

When the government fails in disaster relief efforts, it hurts those who have pre-existing vulnerabilities the most. To truly build back better, the most at risk communities must become more resilient. Its people cannot be left in a cycle of being built up just to get torn down again. Especially when it is their livelihoods and their loved ones, that are getting lost in the process. A change in approach for building back better needs to come from those who understand the circumstances of vulnerable populations to help better implement recovery and resilience policy.   

Countries are already implementing long term resilience strategies that put their most vulnerable first. Samoa has coastal management strategies that include local villages ensuring that voices even at the local level are being heard and they have the training to prepare for cyclones. Strategies in Bangladesh include improving infrastructure to include storm shelters, improving warning systems, and even restoring mangrove forests as they provide natural buffers for cyclones. These countries are addressing adaptation at both the governmental and environmental level in order to ensure resilience to storms.  

The damage from some of the storms this year have never been seen in people’s lifetimes. As these firsts are hitting so many countries, we are faced with the unsettling truth that this is likely the new normal. People who are vulnerable to cyclone damage cannot afford to get caught up in systems that do not completely take their needs into account. With storms becoming all the more frequent how we “built back better” is crucial now more than ever. The same populations cannot be subjected to the same trauma continuously because their governments fail to properly acknowledge their struggles. It’s not right.    

A dredging ship digging sediments from the bottom of a channel (NOAA)

Hurricane season is scary for those living in vulnerable areas. They cause property damages, drastic changes to livelihood, and in many cases, loss of loved ones. Hurricane Sandy devastated the communities of Long Island in 2012 causing major flooding and leaving hundreds of thousands without power.  It is one of the most costly storms in US history.

With hurricanes becoming more frequent, this year being one of the worst on record, and storm surges becoming worse with climate change, it seems that the devastation these storms bring is unstoppable. But is that true? Are sea level rise and climate change the  only factors contributing to storm surge intensity?

The natural environments of storm prone areas help reduce the impacts of storm surges. A recent study explored the ways human impacts in these areas worsens the severity of storm surges. Wetlands provide buffer zones for inland damage resulting from natural disasters such as cyclones and their following storm surges; their removal for industry and communities is a common example of human interference amplifying the impacts of natural disasters.

  A recent study from R. Familkhalili and their group of researchers explored the ways human activity impacts the severity of storm surges. The study models surge events to determine how storm surges behave in an estuary, areas where fresh water bodies meet the ocean. 

Maritime transportation is an essential part of coastal economies. To keep ports open to ships dredging water bodies is often necessary. Dredging removes sediments to ensure the safe passage of boats and ships through canals and harbors. Not only does dredging provide work for those directly involved in the process, it also helps open up coastal communities to maritime trade and other opportunities that bring economic stability to these areas. Economic activity based in the Long island Sound is estimated to produce $9.5 billion per year, and this economic activity is heavily dependent on dredging. While dredging is good for boats, it can be devastating for estuaries. 

A photo of coastal storm surge flooding in New Jersey (Scott Anema/ New Jersey National Guard)

More dredging means a greater water depth, and higher storm surge heights. Changes to the depth of estuaries can have an impact on tides, circulation, and transportation patterns. This means that higher storm surges from sea level rise will only be amplified by dredging. 

Familkhalili simulated multiple surge events on estuaries to examine the interaction of dredging and storm surges. The simulations essentially create a model estuary where conditions of  storm surge or estuary can be changed. The results of this study found that more channel deepening, resulted in more frequent and higher waves and deeper waters during surge events.

Different areas of estuaries will be affected differently by storm surges. Storm surges were placed into two categories: those with short time scales and those with long time scales. The scale depends on the heights of the surge waves. Long time scale surges have small waves while short scale surges have high waves. Surges from short time scale storms affect the mouth of the estuary while long time scale surges go farther into the estuary. This means that different parts of an estuary are more vulnerable to flooding from different types of storm surges. 

    The flood risk to estuaries worsens because of human activities such as dredging. We may think that a deeper channel may act as a trap or buffer for surge waters, but this is not the case. The deeper channels that are left from dredging allows for higher storm surges to reach further into estuaries. Sea level rise continues to worsen these issues. 

This study can help save at risk communities. While dredging brings economic opportunities to communities, dredging is not just about shipping, it is about community resilience to powerful storms. The attention brought to the implications of dredging and other activities that deepen bodies of water alert communities and their officials of the problems that they face from storm surges and what is causing those problems.  

Storms that cause surges are becoming more frequent and more intense as the climate is changing. When the areas that soften the blow of these storms are being unnaturally altered, that line of defense goes away. For estuaries like the Long Island Sound, maintaining the integrity of the surrounding ecosystem is key to protecting surrounding communities. As the activities that change those spaces simultaneously make natural disasters more dangerous, we need to become more aware of these effects to be better prepared for its impacts. This study begins to explore these impacts, and looking to the future, as more research investigates this subject, we can better prepare for the impacts of storm surges. 

Published this year in the journal of GM Crops and Food: Biotechnology in Agriculture and the Food Chain, a study by researchers Graham Brookes & Peter Barfoot analyze the economic effects of genetically modified (GM) crop technology use from sites across the world. Based on data compiled over the last twenty years, the authors conclude that by using GM technology, farmers across the globe have increased crop production and increased their income. 

Though GM crops and technologies are commonplace these days, many struggle to define what exactly a GM crop is. I’ll help you out: genetically modified crop technology is the genetic manipulation of seeds and plants to enhance certain traits, making them grow more efficiently. For example, in Brookes and Barfoot’s research, one strain of GM crops that are measured and analyzed for global production efficiency is herbicide tolerant (HT) crops. These HT crops enable farmers to use herbicides that kill ‘weeds’ (undesired plants that take resources away from the main crop) without harming the crop itself. Barfood and Brookes’ research conclude that these HT crops have reduced costs for farmers and helped them to grow more food using fewer resources by reducing the damage from pests and weeds.

The study takes into account some key variables such as costs of production, gross income, and yields, focusing on soybean, corn, cotton, and canola production globally. The authors of this meta-study claim that farmers have derived significant economic benefits globally since the adaptation of GM biotechnology amounting to $18.9 billion in 2018 alone, and $225.1 billion between 1996 and 2018. Their research discovered that for every dollar invested in GM crop seeds, there resulted in an average gain of $3.24 return in industrialized countries and a $4.41 return in developing countries. These figures all support Brooks and Barfoot’s conclusion that GM crop usage has globally positive economic impacts. 

The problem is that they never explain who is reaping the majority of the profits from the sales of GM seeds. So, how can the researchers conclude farmers are the major recipients of benefits from GM technology without disclosing to whom these profits are going? Interestingly, a closer look at some of the data sourced to inform Barfoot and Brookes’ research reveals a potential source of bias and fallibility, even though the authors do not report any conflicts of interest. Brooks and Barfoot’s research draws on data developed by the global GM icon Monsanto-Beyer in their locations of Monsanto Mexico, Monsanto Australia, and Monsanto Argentina. 

The study fails to distinguish income between small producers and industrial producers where profit margins are the most stark. The study also does not specify what portion of returns are cycled back into the cost of buying new inputs each season. Since GM seeds are manufactured to be sterile (non – reproducing) and require inputs, GM farmers must reinvest their income into the monopoly of GM seeds, ensuring a cycle of dependency on GM seed companies. This cost of replacement seeds and inputs such as pesticides, herbicides, and plant supplements may offset the ‘increased profit’ that Barfoot and Brookes find in their study. Conveniently enough, the additional inputs are also manufactured by the same companies dispensing GM seeds, notably, Monsanto-Bayer.

Seed Industry Structure 1996 – 2013. Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta, Bayer, Dow, and BASF collectively own or partially-own hundreds of formerly-independent seed companies. Chemical company Monsanto holds overwhelming seed monopolies, dominating global seed market shares.

Monsanto – Bayer, DuPont, Syngenta, Dow, and BASF, have dominated the global seed market, monopolizing farmers’ (and consumers) options for produce and have funneled these profits through capitalist schemes – leaving little income for the farmers themselves. Pictured above, Monsanto-Bayer is the largest player in the global seed market, and the company’s profit margins have seen a whopping increase, totaling 141% and growing – a figure that Brookes and Barfoot fail to explore in their research. 

Companies owned by Monsanto – Bayer. 

Are Barfoot and Brookes really attempting to lead us to believe this corporate takeover has been beneficial for small producers? These neat, manipulated calculations actually work to divert global attention and opinion about GM seeds in favor of these large corporations, crushing the voices and autonomy of small producers. GM seeds are not to the benefit of global food producers as these seeds have reduced plant diversity, demolished local seed trade networks, encouraged monocropping and use of chemical additives (leading to adverse environmental effects such as chemical run – off, contamination of drinking water), diminished soil quality long term, and reduced local knowledge of foods, farming, and seeds. GM seeds have put many small producers and seed traders out of business by disproportionately reducing crop prices causing inflation in global markets and then buying out smaller producers – resulting in Monsanto – Bayer and other crony capitalists domination of the market, as shown in the above graphics.

Though the authors of this study boast about booming agricultural production, GM crop production has not aided global hunger. The United Nations reported that hunger is on the rise for the third consecutive year and began to slowly increase again in 2015 to now. More, GM seeds are not a sustainable solution for small farmers or communities in need of food security due to the recurrent input costs, lack of climate resilience, damage to local environments, and lack of cultural appropriateness. 

Let’s also address the fact that there is a global excess of produce. This is an issue of distribution, not one of production. Contrary to Brooks and Barfoot’s opinions, a mass increase in crop production is not to the benefit of the world. In fact, overproduction of crops depresses international market prices of crops, creating severe problems for developing countries whose economies are based on agriculture. The majority of countries whose workforce is primarily employed in agriculture are located in developing countries; thus, creating a disproportionate net negative effect on the long-term economic growth and stability of farming economies and jobs.

What Monsanto – Bayer and their crew of GM competitors do not want you to know is that farmers using local and heritage seed varieties can feed hundreds of families off the exact same area of land as GM seeds. Locals using their own seed and techniques enable communities to build sustainable food systems and eventually become food sovereign (in control of their own culturally appropriate food production). Methods of local food production simultaneously support crop variety, biodiversity, climate resilience, historical ownership, resistance to financial flight, nutrition, and many more truly positive outcomes. 

Though Brooks and Barfoot’s rosy economic analyses may be impressive on face value, the real cost of GM crops in our global community is more than just economic. The global adaptation of GM crops has privileged private interests and empowered industrial agriculture while damaging small producers, Indigenous peoples, and cultural heritage in the long run. 

Money can’t buy happiness–a truism so familiar that not even a quick Google search reveals its origins. Nevertheless, investing in climate change mitigation can improve quality of life. Many of the world’s poorest countries also find themselves at risk from climate change without the necessary investment in weather-proof infrastructure needed to sustain life. Developing countries find this especially difficult, as many work to expand their economies within the global market. 

Under a free-market capitalist system, the strength of a country’s economy is measured by its Gross Domestic Product (GDP). GDP measures the net value of a country’s production and thus its “worth” in the global market. It would stand, therefore, that the wealthier the country, the better the quality of life, right?

Often heralded as an international status symbol, GDP’s wealth measurement is inherently problematic. The free-market system worships economic growth with little concern for human or ecological consequences. A Gross Domestic Product measurement, therefore, doesn’t take into account most of the fundamental parts of human life–relationships, community, and quality of life.  Therefore, some scientists suggest that rather than dubbing our age the Anthropocene, we adopt an alternative title that specifically targets capitalism’s impact on our environment: the Capitalocene.

Following the Great Recession, more countries became open to the idea of replacing GDP with a more comprehensive measurement of success. After witnessing massive bailouts of the fossil fuel industry, countries like France and Bhutan used the momentum to heighten public awareness of the fossil fuel industry’s massive impact on human-induced climate change. Their plan? Eliminate the social and environmental conditions that allowed bailouts and stunted socio-economic growth. 

A study conducted by researchers from the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa decided to examine how a country could create an actionable method for inspecting and changing its culture. Pulling data from a book by Lorenzo Fioramonti, the study argues that global economic growth has been static since the 1970s, if including the costs of environmental externalities. 

Consider the case of Bhutan. This south Asian country pioneered a more holistic measurement of a country’s success. Adopted by the UN in 2011, the Gross National Happiness (GNH) Index considers the overall wellbeing of a nation’s residents by measuring satisfaction with education, health, and other living standards.

In Bhutan, the researchers inspected the Bhutanese Constitution to determine which values the people and government deem necessary to uphold. The document explicitly references the government’s purpose as a body that helps  “enhance the unity, happiness and well-being of the people for all time.” Using these standards, they designed a survey to guide the government in responding to the results.

A survey conducted by the Bhutanese government asked citizens to rate their overall satisfaction within 9 different domains, such as Health and Education, and the 33 sub-categories, like living standards, psychological wellbeing, and ecological diversity/resilience. With a sample size of 9,000 people, the researchers and Bhutanese government surveyed approximately 1% of the country’s total population. Unlike GNH surveys in other countries, Bhutan trains its workers for 13 days, requiring that the survey conductors spend significant time with each person they interview. They must also conduct the survey in the region’s local language rather than English so as to reach a more diverse group of respondents.

Overall, only 10.4% of the population declare themselves unhappy. People are most satisfied with their safety, relationships to the environment, and feeling responsible for their environment. The areas with the most room for improvement include expanding education, work/life balance, and cultural participation. Most importantly, the results show that as material wellbeing increases, psychological wellbeing decreases significantly.

Bhutan, like many other nations globally, finds itself wanting to preserve its environment and culture, two elements that survey participants emphasize. Nevertheless, survey participants remark that because of the Bhutanese government’s acceptance of multinational corporations, many feel they and their families are at risk of losing their jobs and land to make way for economic development.

Ultimately, the Gross National Happiness indicates there must be change on local levels to bring about national (and then international) systemic change. The more that scientists and government officials communicate, the better policy can be informed by science. By examining and addressing the population’s concerns, governments can employ the results of a GNH throughout communities nationally to combat the climate crisis and socioeconomic inequality.

To attain a viable path to a sustainable future, the researchers emphasize examining the shortcomings of traditional political thinking. Adopting an ecosocial approach to the climate crisis requires small-scale alterations on the local level before a large-scale structural change can occur. The results of the Bhutanese study conclude that by developing platforms focused on social and environmental justice instead of capitalism alone, we can mend the developing ecological crisis.

     Bee populations have been declining in recent years. Not only have honey bee colonies declined around the world; wild bees are disappearing, too. A global survey from 2017 indicates that over half (749) of extant bee species are at serious risk of extinction due to human activity. These wild bees are incredibly diverse, from the near-microscopic, shiny sweat bee, to lovingly clumsy, fuzzy bumblebees. They serve distinct roles in their ecosystem and represent a fantastic, beautiful family of animals.

     Compared to wild species, understanding honey bee threats comes with an advantage. Honey bees are managed by beekeepers so their hives can be counted and colony health monitored. Honey bees are easy to come by for experimental or commercial purposes. Most bees we see buzzing around us are indeed honey bees! 

     Wild bees, on the other hand, are not closely monitored or kept by humans. We can’t raise them in large groups or harvest their products to consume or sell. Most live solitary lives, and cannot be traced back to large nests. This makes it difficult for scientists to measure wild bee species diversity and numbers of individuals within a habitat.. However, this information is important because wild bees are essential pollinators, and their conservation is crucial to the functioning of ecosystems, as well as pollinating our food, worldwide.

     Since wild bees are so difficult to monitor, can honey bees provide proxy data for wild bee survival? T.J. Wood, a scientist in Belgium, and his team sought to answer this question by comparing managed and wild bee data across Europe. Honey bees and wild bees are influenced by similar factors, so, therefore, they might yield similar results. Both honey and wild bees will forage (collect nectar and pollen from various sources) from the same plants. Because of this, lack of available flowers or pesticide contamination may affect both types of bees. Other factors, such as weather, would potentially have an impact on all bees, as well. 

     When I worked in my first bee lab, I aided a Ph.D. candidate in measuring wild bee populations in a large botanical garden. The process is painstaking. I had to quickly find bees, perched on flowers often several feet away. Then, I crept up to them and quickly captured them in a small vial. Many attempts were unsuccessful and could’ve led to stings (although I was spared!). Lugging dozens of bees in my pockets, I’d return to the lab. There I killed and pinned them in order to properly identify them. This methodology is laborious and doesn’t give a 100% accurate picture of the local populations. Imagine if wild bee scientists, and the sacrificed bees, were spared this process!

A gorgeous brown-belted bumble bee I caught while surveying native bee populations.

     Wood and his fellow researchers approached their question by comparing existing datasets on wild bees and managed honey bees across Europe. The biggest challenge was a severe lack of data for most wild bees. For example, the genus Apis, honey bees, is the least threatened bee genus, but the leading genus in data collected. Data on the most threatened genera is sparse. This paradox makes it difficult to understand the relationship between wild and managed bee populations.

     There is another reason why researchers determined that honey bees can’t simply be a surrogate for monitoring their wild counterparts. Even though many factors influence both, some wild bee species are very different from honey bees. 

     Some wild bees specialize in pollinating a very small range of plants, meaning that is their only source of food. If those plants decrease in availability, honey bees can find others to forage from. However, wild specialists are left in the dust. For example, 28 species of mason and carpenter bees strictly visit flowers in the Aster family, such as daisies. They cannot survive if Asters disappear from their habitat. We depend on specialists as well. Vanilla, native to the island of Madagascar, is now mostly grown and harvested in South America, lacking Madagascar’s orchid bees. These bees are the only ones capable of pollinating the vanilla orchid. Therefore, in South America, humans must hand pollinate each blossom with a toothpick. That’s why vanilla is so expensive! 

     Honey bees also have an upper hand because they are managed, receiving extra protection from threats such as pathogens and parasites. Beekeepers can intervene to help affected honey bee colonies, while wild bees have no human helpers.

     While Wood’s research doesn’t offer shortcuts for monitoring wild bee populations, it provides insightful direction for the future of wild bee conservation. Research and surveys should focus on the most vulnerable genera that lack robust information. After all, shouldn’t science be trying to answer our unanswered questions?. 

     In the future, the grueling work of monitoring tiny wild bees could pay off, and that data may support an efficient monitoring system, helping us better understand the vital roles these insects play in ecosystems.