Gov. Jay Inslee on the Climate Crisis: ‘We Cannot Give in to Defeat and Pessimism’
25 September
Insights + Opinion
Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington comforts Marsha Maus, 75, whose home was destroyed during California's deadly 2018 wildfires, on March 11, 2019 in Agoura Hills, California. Mel Melcon / Los Angeles Times / Getty Images
By Governor Jay Inslee
Climate Week this year coincides with clear skies in Washington state for the first time in almost two weeks.
In just a few days in early September, Washington state saw enough acres burned – more than 600,000 – to reach our second-worst fire season on record. Our worst fire season came only five years ago. Wildfires aren't new to the west, but their scope and danger today is unlike anything firefighters have seen. People up and down the West Coast – young and old, in rural areas and in cities – were choking on smoke for days on end, trapped in their homes.
Fires like these are becoming the norm, not the exception.
<p>That's because as the climate changes, our fires change. Climate scientists tell us that if greenhouse gas emissions continue on their current path, later this century the <em>average </em>year in Washington will eventually be warmer than the single hottest year of the 20th century. The heat leaves our land and vegetation dry and primed for ignition, with blazes for which our landscapes are not evolved to cope. We're seeing more acres burned, and more days with our state swathed in hazardous smoke and ash.</p><p>Rain, cooler weather, and heroic firefighting efforts have finally tamped down the fires and poor air quality; but the burn scars remain, and they are most acutely felt by those who lost homes, businesses, and loved ones in fires this year.</p><p>I have seen the chaos firsthand in recent visits to burned areas both east and west of the Cascade Mountains. As communities in Malden, Bonney Lake, and Graham, Washington, recover from the damage done this month, it's not enough for us as leaders to help our towns recover from one devastating event after another. We need a plan to stop these increasingly ferocious natural disasters from becoming uncontrollable. The situation demands that <a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/t/climate-change/" target="_blank">climate change</a> be front and center in this plan – because it is the root and stem of the new challenges we face in disaster response.</p>
<p>While wildfires are the most recent, and some of the most visceral images of climate change, they are unfortunately just one manifestation of a <a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/t/climate-crisis/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">climate crisis</a> with far-reaching implications.</p><p>From the woods and prairies to the oceans, rivers and streams, we see the damaging effects of climate change. West Coast marine waters are acidifying at twice the global rate, our streams are becoming too warm to support salmon, and our agricultural productivity is falling as a result of record heat.</p><p>But we cannot give in to defeat and pessimism. This is not a lost cause.</p><p>There is broad consensus on what we need to do to slow and turn back the effects of human-driven climate change: all hands on deck for a global decarbonization that grows jobs and protects communities.</p>
<p>Every year, Climate Week gives us the opportunity to highlight this urgent need. But we need every week to be Climate Week. Given the science, knowledge and tools at our disposal, it is unacceptable that more has not been done to address the terrifying implications of climate change in the 21st century. We have no more time to waste.</p><p>We face a powerful oil and gas industry that has sunk its claws into Congress and numerous state governments, and a presidential administration backed by a major political party dedicated to protecting polluters and spreading lies and confusion about the science. On the flip side is the urgent and painfully clear scientific consensus, coupled with the fact that the majority of Americans support action now on climate change.</p><p>This is a battle that we can – and must – win, beginning with our votes in November.</p><p>And winning the fight won't just protect our communities from the dangerous effects of climate change. It will create enormous new economic opportunity.</p>
<p>The latest jobs report from E2, a national nonpartisan group of business leaders and investors focused on sustainable energy policies, shows there are already more than 3 million clean energy jobs in America today. If we can find the will to massively accelerate the development of renewable resources, we can create millions of more jobs.</p><p>If 2020 has taught us anything, it's that facts are stubborn things, and denial can be fatal. The federal government's failure to accept the reality of the Covid-19 crisis once again demonstrated why aloofness is no replacement for proactive leadership.</p><p>While we know this administration would be wise to change its destructive path – by bringing our country back into the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, by putting in place strong clean car standards, or by restoring key environmental protections razed by Trump's cronies – we know they won't. However, public opinion is clear even after years of misinformation and downright lies. There is not enough oil money in the world to stop the American people from rising up for what's right, and it's time to hit back.</p><p>Let this Climate Week be a reminder not merely of the long road ahead, but of our own power to make that journey together. Start now, so that in Climate Week 2021 we'll have a little less distance to cover.</p>
<p><em>This story originally appeared in</em><em> <a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/" target="_blank">Rolling Stone </a></em><em>and is republished here as part of Covering Climate Now, a global journalism collaboration strengthening coverage of the climate story.</em></p>
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Vote as if the Climate and the Future of Humanity Depend on It—Because They Do
25 September
Insights + Opinion
Four more years will be enough to cement in place Trump's anti-environmental policies and to make sure it's too late to really change course. Enrique Meseguer / Pixabay
By Bill McKibben
To understand the planetary importance of this autumn's presidential election, check the calendar. Voting ends on November 3—and by a fluke of timing, on the morning of November 4 the United States is scheduled to pull out of the Paris Agreement.
President Trump announced that we would abrogate our Paris commitments during a Rose Garden speech in 2017. But under the terms of the accords, it takes three years to formalize the withdrawal. So on Election Day it won't be just Americans watching: The people of the world will see whether the country that has poured more carbon into the atmosphere than any other over the course of history will become the only country that refuses to cooperate in the one international effort to do something about the climate crisis.
<p>Trump's withdrawal benefited oil executives, who have donated millions of dollars to his reelection campaign, and the small, strange fringe of climate deniers who continue to insist that the planet is cooling. But most people living in the rational world were appalled. Polling showed widespread opposition, and by some measures, Trump is more out of line with the American populace on environmental issues than any other. In his withdrawal announcement he said he'd been elected "to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris"; before the day was out, Pittsburgh's mayor had pledged that his city would follow the guidelines set in the French capital. Young people, above all, have despised the president's climate moves: Poll after poll shows that climate change is a top-tier issue with them and often the most important one—mostly, I think, because they've come to understand how tightly linked it is not just to their future but to questions of justice, equity, and race. </p><p>Here's the truth: At this late date, meeting the promises set in Paris will be nowhere near enough. If you add up the various pledges that nations made at that conference, they plan on moving so timidly that the planet's temperature will still rise more than 3 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels. So far, we've raised the mercury 1 degree Celsius, and that's been enough to melt millions of square miles of ice in the Arctic, extend fire seasons for months, and dramatically alter the planet's rainfall patterns. Settling for 3 degrees is kind of like writing a global suicide note. </p>
<p>Happily, we could go much faster if we wanted. The price of solar and wind power has fallen so fast and so far in the last few years that they are now the cheapest power on earth. There are plenty of calculations to show it will soon be cheaper to build solar and wind farms than to operate the fossil fuel power stations we've already built. Climate-smart investments are also better for workers and economic equality. "We need to have climate justice, which means to invest in green energy, [which] creates three times more jobs than to invest in fossil fuel energy," United Nations Secretary General António Guterres said in an interview with Covering Climate Now in September. If we wanted to make it happen, in other words, an energy revolution is entirely possible. The best new study shows that the United States could cut its current power sector emissions 80 percent by 2035 and create 20 million jobs along the way. </p><p>Joe Biden and Kamala Harris haven't pledged to move that quickly, but their climate plan is the farthest-reaching of any presidential ticket in history. More to the point, we can pressure them to go farther and faster. Already, seeing the polling on the wall, they've adopted many of the proposals of climate stalwarts like Washington Governor Jay Inslee. A team of Biden and Bernie Sanders representatives worked out a pragmatic but powerful compromise in talks before the Democratic National Convention; the Biden-Harris ticket seems primed to use a transition to green energy as a crucial part of a push to rebuild the pandemic-devastated economy. </p>
<p>Perhaps most important, they've pledged to try to lead the rest of the world in the climate fight. The United States has never really done this. Our role as the single biggest producer of hydrocarbons has meant that our response to global warming has always been crippled by the political power of Big Oil. But that power has begun to slip. Once the biggest economic force on the planet, the oil industry is a shadow of its former self. (You could buy all the oil companies in America for less than the cost of Apple; Tesla is worth more than any other auto company on earth.) And so it's possible that the hammerlock on policy exercised by this reckless industry will loosen if Trump is beaten.</p><p>But only if he's beaten. Four more years will be enough to cement in place his anti-environmental policies and to make sure it's too late to really change course. The world's climate scientists declared in 2018 that if we had any chance of meeting sane climate targets, we had to cut emissions almost in half by 2030. That's less than 10 years away. We're at the last possible moment to turn the wheel of the supertanker that is our government. Captain Trump wants to steer us straight onto the rocks, mumbling all the while about hoaxes. If we let him do it, history won't forgive us. Nor will the rest of the world.</p>
<p><em>This story originally appeared in</em> <em><a href="https://www.thenation.com" target="_blank">The Nation</a></em> <em>and is republished here as part of Covering Climate Now, a global journalism collaboration strengthening coverage of the climate story.</em></p>
Read More
Show Less
A couple react as they go through their destroyed mobile home following Hurricane Laura in Lake Charles, Louisiana, on August 27, 2020. ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / AFP / Getty Images
By Mark Hertsgaard and Kyle Pope
In this autumn of horrific fires and deadly floods, it's easy to overlook one bit of promising news on the climate front: Some major U.S. media coverage of the crisis is finally getting better.
<p>We're seeing the evidence this week as Covering Climate Now—a collaboration of four hundred-plus news outlets, with a combined audience of two billion people—publishes and broadcasts a profusion of stories about climate change and the 2020 U.S. elections. Climate change has been largely overlooked in general-election coverage to date, with one exception: September 14, when Donald Trump said of California's record wildfires, inaccurately, that "science doesn't know" whether the earth will keep getting hotter and his Democratic opponent, Joe Biden, warned that re-electing a "climate arsonist" to the White House would ensure worse blazes in the future.</p><p>Covering Climate Now's <a href="https://www.coveringclimatenow.org/coverage-week-2020" target="_blank">week of coverage</a>, which runs September 21 through 28, aims to give climate change the attention it deserves. The collaborative, co-founded last year by CJR and <em>The Nation </em>in association with <em>The Guardian</em>, aims to help news organizations increase and improve coverage of the crisis as well as its solutions. Even amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the looming Supreme Court battle, and the other huge news stories of 2020, "the climate emergency remains the central question facing the world," United Nations Secretary General António Guterres said in <a href="https://www.coveringclimatenow.org/climate-beat/hnmqv7o1aw1lq9l8aj007y2inrssvn" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">a September 8 interview with Covering Climate Now</a>. As Justin Worland wrote in a landmark <a href="https://time.com/5864692/climate-change-defining-moment/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">special issue of <em>Time</em> magazine</a> on July 7, the U.S. elections will shape whether we "keep driving off the climate cliff or take the last exit."</p>
<p>NBC News, which joined Covering Climate Now in April, kicked off this current week of joint coverage by launching a new series, Planet 2020. Al Roker, the network's chief climate correspondent and long-time weather forecaster, has been talking about climate change on the <em>Today</em> show for months, describing its links to wildfires and hurricanes without wiggle words or alarmism. Now, Roker and cohost Savannah Sellers, the host of NBC's daily digital news show <em>Stay Tuned</em>, are connecting the dots between extreme weather, climate change, and the 2020 elections where, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXMlFFY9uEI" target="_blank">as Sellers reported</a>, "millennials and Gen-Z will make up 37 percent of eligible voters and concern over climate change is … shaping up to be more important to all voting blocs than ever before." Also this week, our partners at Reuters and Agence France Presse delivered a story to their thousands of newsroom clients around the world that <a href="https://news.yahoo.com/richest-1-emissions-twice-poorest-001208383.html" target="_blank">puts the Paris Agreement goals in a new light</a>, reporting, "The richest one percent of people are responsible for more than twice as much carbon pollution as the poorest half of the world's population."</p><p>Good climate coverage by Covering Climate Now partners is begetting good climate coverage among the media as a whole. More of America's leading newspapers are speaking more loudly and plainly about climate change, notably <em>The New York Times</em>, the <em>Washington Post</em>, the <em>Philadelphia Inquirer</em>, the <em>Arizona Republic</em>, and the <em>Los Angeles Times</em>. The latter headlined a September 14 <a href="https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/newsletter/2020-09-14/climate-change-wildfires-california-oregon-washington-todays-headlines/" target="_blank">story about the state's wildfires</a> "A Climate Apocalypse Now." Among magazines, Bloomberg has launched a new digital outlet and accompanying print edition, <em>Bloomberg Green</em>, that is a must-read for the far-reaching economic aspects of the climate story.</p>
<p>On television, Covering Climate Now partner PBS NewsHour continues to set the pace for sustained, informed climate coverage. And on August 8, CNN rebroadcast climate correspondent Bill Weir's "<a href="http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/2008/08/csr.01.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">The Road to Change</a>," a documentary that <a href="https://www.cjr.org/covering_climate_now/cnn-road-to-change-climate-crisis.php" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">we praised in April</a> as perhaps the best piece of climate journalism ever done by a mainstream US news outlet. </p><p>The problem is, these and other examples of first-rate climate coverage remain the exception.</p><p>Despite recent orange skies over the West Coast and fearsome storm surges in the Gulf of Mexico, not to mention the 32 years since NASA scientist James Hansen's U.S. Senate testimony that man-made global warming had begun, the climate crisis remains a marginal afterthought in most U.S. news coverage. Chris Wallace of Fox News has announced that he will not even raise the subject of climate change when moderating the first presidential debate between Trump and Biden next week.</p>
<p>And consider the scandalous absence of climate change from most coverage of the wildfires, Hurricane Laura, the Iowa derecho, and countless other extreme weather events of 2020. Only one of the ninety-three news segments that ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox, and MSNBC aired during the week after Laura slammed the Louisiana coast connected the storm to climate change, <a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/broadcast-networks/broadcast-and-cable-news-coverage-hurricane-laura-was-shallow-and" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">according to a study</a> by the watchdog group Media Matters. Of forty-six segments ABC, NBC, and CBS aired on the California wildfires, <a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/broadcast-networks/corporate-broadcast-tv-news-fails-make-crucial-connection-between-record" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">only seven mentioned climate change. </a></p><p>This is media malpractice. It is also, from a business point of view, foolish: the public actually <a href="https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2020/9/17/voters-want-to-see-more-climate-coverage-in-the-media" target="_blank">wants more, not less</a>, climate coverage. According to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/23/us-voters-climate-change-guardian-vice-poll" target="_blank">a poll released today</a> by our partners at <em>The</em> <em>Guardian</em> and VICE Media, 74 percent of likely voters want the moderators to ask climate questions at the upcoming presidential debates.</p><p><span></span>We are heartened by the progress Covering Climate Now has made in helping the media rise to the existential challenge of the climate crisis. Yet even as we celebrate that progress this week, we recognize how far there is to go, and how little time we have to get there. The first presidential debate takes place on September 29, and five weeks later is Election Day. Between now and then, newsrooms should <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/the-planet-is-on-a-fast-path-to-destruction-the-media-must-cover-this-like-its-the-only-story-that-matters/2018/10/08/f806a7f0-caea-11e8-a3e6-44daa3d35ede_story.html" target="_blank">follow the advice</a> of <em>Washington Post</em> media columnist Margaret Sullivan: "This subject must be kept front and center, with the pressure on and the stakes made abundantly clear at every turn."</p>
<p><em>This story originally appeared in <a href="https://www.cjr.org/" target="_blank">Columbia Journalism Review</a><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/r/entryeditor/2647788050#/" target="_self"></a> </em><em>and is republished here as part of Covering Climate Now, a global journalism collaboration strengthening coverage of the climate story.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- Media Avoid Climate Change in Wildfire and Extreme Weather ... ›
- 'Call It a Crisis': Report Details Failure of Cable and Network Outlets ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Support Ecowatch
Participants hold an Indigenous sovereignty banner as hundreds of protesters disrupted traffic marching on Central Park West in New York City on Oct. 14, 2019. Activist group Decolonize This Place and a citywide coalition of grassroots groups organized the fourth Anti-Columbus Day tour. Erik McGregor / LightRocket via Getty Images
By Jazmin Murphy
Whenever you talk about race relations here in so-called "America," Indigenous communities [are] always the last ones on the rung," says Wanbli Wiyan Ka'win (Eagle Feather Woman), also known as Joye Braun, a front-line community organizer with the Indigenous Environmental Network who fought against the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines. In defending the land so deeply beloved and cherished by her people, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Braun recounts how actively her community is excluded from environmental work and how she and her colleagues are blatantly silenced, even when working alongside allies. "We've had to really fight … to even have a seat at the table," she says.
<p>The exclusion of Indigenous people and other non-White communities in environmental and conservation work is, unfortunately, nothing new. For centuries, conservation has been driven by Eurocentric, Judeo-Christian belief structures that emphasize a distinct separation of "Man" and "Nature" — an ideology that does not mesh well with many belief structures, including those belonging to Indigenous communities.</p>
<p>"Christianity has been largely built up around the idea of colonization," Braun says. Not only do these belief structures hold disproportionate power in environmental legislation, but they hold historical pains for those outside of Western religions. "Christianity was forced down our throats," Braun says. "Our reservations were divided up: 'OK this community … you can be Catholic. This community … you're Lutheran. This community … you're whatever.'"</p><p>Before the onset of such religion through colonialist conquests, the overwhelming consensus throughout the world was that human beings were just a small part of this natural world. Neither detached, nor superior. Of course, this "consensus" was not necessarily expressed in such a way that all groups adhered to the same belief structures. Yet, the underlying environmental ideology remains: Human beings are, to some extent, connected to all other living things on Earth, even the Earth itself. As European imperialism — and along with it, cultural genocide — began to take hold worldwide, so began the spread of the "Man versus Nature" dogma.</p><p>Today Braun's life is just one example of the ideological exclusion of non-European thought as it relates to wildlife and the natural world. Nonsubscribers are barred from participation in the protection of the world and nonhuman lives they hold so dear, which inhibits their environmental stewardship. But around the world, and especially in the United States, we are witnessing a historical push toward the dismantling of imperialism, the decentralization of power, and the welcoming of non-White, non-European values into conservation.</p>
<h3>How Modern Conservation Upholds the Superiority of Humans</h3><p>Christianity has deep, painful historical associations with the obsession of dominance. The same Bible that was used to enforce humans' domination over nature was also used to force Indigenous peoples to abandon their cultural truths for those more palatable to Europeans. This laid the foundation that continues to separate human life from nature to this day.</p><p>As the Bible states in Genesis, "Let [Man] have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over all the wild animals of the earth." We see echoes of this passage in the frameworks of many conservation objectives today, with concepts such as "creating" sustainable forests, "managing" wildlife populations, and "preserving" wilderness as a realm separate from that of humans. This reduces our perception of human connectivity to nonhuman life and to distance constituents from the objective recognition of Earth's intrinsic value.</p><p>Take one of the U.S.'s leading environmental organizations, for example. The <a href="https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/index.htm#:~:text=Follow%20Us-,Our%20Mission,of%20this%20and%20future%20generations." target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">National Park Service</a>—a federal organization with <a href="https://www.eenews.net/stories/1063447583" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">well-known racist origins</a>—has a mission statement that almost exclusively highlights the instrumental value of North America's natural lands: "The National Park Services preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the National Park System for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations … to extend the benefits of natural and cultural resources conservation … throughout this country and the world."</p><p>Their mission is painfully anthropocentric, never mind that the very lands it aims to extend were stolen from Indigenous tribes who are now denied access. Missions such as these create a nigh impenetrable ideological barrier through which environmentalists of non-Christian cultures cannot pass.</p>
<h3>Keeping POC Out of Conservation</h3><p>These organizational goals exclude other faith (or non-faith) groups and have nurtured a hostile environment that disproportionately affects people of color. Historical experiences function to reinforce these impacts, further preventing people of color from exercising agency in conservation initiatives. For one, White constituents do not live with the same generational trauma that people of color do.</p><p>Experiences rooted in genocide and slavery, for example, still inform people's experience of the outdoors. Black people were forbidden to enter certain spaces owned by the National Park Service and other natural lands because of Jim Crow laws and deeply rooted racism, <a href="https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/conl.12431" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">as pointed out by researchers Rachelle K</a>. <a href="https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/conl.12431" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Gould and others</a>. Many were lynched in these landscapes as well. Thus, for Black people, experiencing the outdoors was to put one's life on the line.</p><p>Simultaneously, "those in power [imposed] a particular concept of environment," Gould says, which denied Black people's experiences in natural habitats. Ideological disparities have likewise discouraged Indigenous agency in land management despite how profoundly they value land and wildlife. In the words of <a href="https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-017-0149-5_17" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Paula Gunn Allen of the Laguna Pueblo</a>, "The land is not really the place (separate from ourselves) where we act out the drama of our isolate destinies … It is not a matter of being 'close to nature'… The Earth is, in a very real sense, the same as our self (or selves)."</p><p>Inequality lies even in the evasiveness of definitions. "Google the word, 'environment' and see how far you need to scroll to see pictures of people in urban areas," Pomona College psychologist Adam Pearson says. "What counts as being an 'environmentalist?' And what counts as 'environmentalism?'" The vast majority of Americans believe that people of color do not feel strongly about environmental causes. Black, Latino, Asian, and White respondents <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/115/49/12429.short" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">in a 2018 survey</a> overwhelmingly associated environmentalism with whiteness and underestimated environmental valuation in their own communities. Some 65% of Latin and 68% of Asian respondents self-identified as "environmentalists," compared to 50% of White respondents.</p>
<h3>What Equal Opportunity Actually Looks Like</h3><p>The public has long held onto the idea that the socioeconomic inequalities play a large role in a person of color's individual capacity to care for the environment when in fact, conservation organizations often create unequal socioeconomic barriers. People of color who try to enter professional roles in American conservation often encounter pay rates <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/17/all-work-no-pay-the-plight-of-young-conservationists" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">below the poverty line</a> (and have done so for decades). That requires applicants to have enough accumulated wealth to be able to afford forgoing reasonable pay to "gain experience" — a luxury out of reach for many non-Whites because of <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/02/27/examining-the-black-white-wealth-gap/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">massive racial wealth disparities that result from long-standing discrimination</a>. Even those who fall in line with the Christian dogma are granted unequal access and compensation. Forty-nine percent of Black Christians, compared to 28% of White Christians, earn less than $30,000 annually, according to the <a href="https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/christians/christian/racial-and-ethnic-composition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Pew Research Center</a>.</p><p>Ideological disparities have also had clear effects on Indigenous agency in land management. For example, the United States Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services works to combat "<a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/directives/pdf/1.201.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">wildlife damage</a>," the idea that wildlife poses a threat not only to human health, safety, and property, but to natural resources as well. This concept is a stark contrast to many cultures' environmental values.</p><p>How would one expect an Indigenous person, a Buddhist, or a Muslim to feel welcome in such a space? The answer lies not only in dismantling millennia of imperialism, but also in the conscious invitation of non-White, non-European cultures into conservation.</p><p>According to Pearson, this requires combating stereotypes of environmentalists and creating enthusiasm for working in traditionally noninclusive spaces. Fulfilling these responsibilities requires taking an honest look at how ideological contrasts actively exclude people of color and perpetuate a negative feedback loop that overrepresents White people in environmental and conservation spaces.</p><p>"Inviting people to advise doesn't mean that they're gonna listen," Braun notes when discussing possible methods of increasing diversity in conservation. "I've seen that a lot. That's just them patting themselves on the back." She says real progress relies on human connection. "When you are facing one another, then you're forced to deal with things like the prejudices you carry on your back. You're forced to face the potential of racism. You're forced to face the economic divides."</p>
<h3>Abandoning Exclusivity for Diverse Community-Based Management</h3><p>As climate change becomes a mainstream concern, Indigenous knowledge can reveal truths not visible with White, Eurocentric approaches to conservation. Traditional ecological knowledge is <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13280-019-01218-6" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">central to monitoring and combating climatic change</a>, according to a 2019 study in British Columbia and Alaska. "The region is a bellwether for biodiversity changes in coastal, forest, and montane environments," the authors write, and "an extremely dynamic and resilient social-ecological system where Indigenous Peoples have been adjusting to changing climate and biodiversity for millennia."</p><p>Nearly 100 Indigenous elders from communities along the Pacific Coast shared with researchers the changes they had observed in coho and sockeye salmon migration patterns and the effects of warming aquatic temperatures with great detail. They had similar observations of the Sitka black-tailed deer, highlighting that their migration patterns had been influenced by fluctuating factors such as rising temperatures and reduced snowfall. Ultimately, the researchers asserted that present environmental governance is far too rigid in its exclusivity of Indigenous knowledge and that "token community visits" must evolve to invite Native environmental observers and managers to share their knowledge to create tangible progress.</p><p>While these ideas remain nascent in much of American conservation, other countries provide examples of success. For decades, forests in Benin were exclusively owned and managed by state officials. They were supported (and thus, politically influenced) by major stakeholders including the Fondation Aide á l'Autonomie Tobé, a Swiss non-governmental organization. Though the foundation surely had the best interests of the Benin constituents in mind, their collaboration didn't represent the public's values. Those living within the Tobé-Kpobidon forest, for example, did not feel welcome in forest management, which led to unsustainable resource use and degradation of the land.</p><p>To establish newfound hope for sustainable forest management and community involvement, a team of researchers, led by Rodrigue Castro Gbedomon <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1389934116300016" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">implemented a "community forestry approach" in 2016</a>. This methodology aims to "alleviate poverty among forest users, empower them, and improve the condition of the forests." The idea was that the invitation for community involvement (and thus, agency in management decision-making processes) would nurture a sense of ownership in constituents, encouraging them toward more conservative use of forest resources, thereby creating a more sustainable existence for the forest.</p><p>The team consciously invited varying ideals and perspectives into management practices by interviewing elders and community leaders on their perspectives regarding the forest's health. Stakeholders included nongovernmental organization leaders, and traditional and religious authorities that led and guided the surrounding communities. Divinity priests were invited as well, representing deities revered by the locals, including Ogu (the god of iron), Tchankponon (the god of smallpox), Otchoumare (the god of the rainbow), and Nonon (the god of bees). First Settlers and local hunters were also given authority in this work, serving to extend the network of participation deeply into every facet of the residents surrounding and within the Tobé-Kpobidon forest.</p><p>This decentralization of power and integration of diverse belief structures was supported by the foundation, which provided the financial resources and the means for reinforcement of the constituents' chosen management policies. This included warning signs indicating forest boundaries and guards to manage entry into the area. The foundation also rewarded locals' involvement with a yearly stipend of 500,000 FCA ($1,000) to further encourage their continued dedication to conservation activities.</p><p>This new governance structure yielded phenomenal results. As community access to the forest expanded for medicinal gathering, hunting, beekeeping, and more, the forest's contribution to the local economy increased to make up more than 25% of the First Settlers' income. Also, the native flora experienced a "progressive evolution" alongside a healthy, low rate of human agricultural interference. (Cashew plantations, for example, expanded at only 0.4% annually). This community-focused approach continued to have positive effects on the forest in the years after the study.</p><p>The Tobé-Kpobidon Forest experimental management approach, along with the extensive foundation of evidence validating Indigenous knowledge, serve as a beacon of hope amid the darkness that looms over non-White, non-European demographics that yearn for a role in conservation initiatives. It demonstrates that the present ideological chasms that keep people of color out of conservation can be defeated and that such cultural victories powerfully serve both humans and the natural landscapes in which we reside.</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.yesmagazine.org/environment/2020/09/15/conservation-decolonize-environmentalism/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+yes/most-recent-articles+(YES!+Magazine+Most+Recent+Articles)" target="_blank">YES! Magazine</a>.</em><br/></p>From Your Site Articles
- 15 EcoWatch Stories on Environmental and Racial Injustice ... ›
- 16 Essential Books About Environmental Justice, Racism and Activism ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
54 Million People in the U.S. May Go Hungry During the Pandemic — Can Urban Farms Help?
07 September
Insights + Opinion
An example of urban farming is seen on this Chicago rooftop. Linda / Wikimedia Commons / CC by 2.0
By Melissa Kravitz Hoeffner
When I call Chef Q. Ibraheem to discuss urban farming in her own cooking career, she's in the middle of placing an order for microgreens from a small farm in Lake Forest, a ritzy suburb just north of downtown Chicago. Now's a great time for her to chat, actually, because the Chicago-based chef is immersed in what she loves, sourcing ingredients as locally as possible.
<p>"It's really important we know where our food is coming from," she says. "I know my farmers by name. I can go to the farms, see how they are growing everything, see it in the soil. It's always nice to have something within reach and know your produce." Chef Q runs supper clubs and chef camps throughout Chicagoland, sustaining the local economy by purchasing ingredients from urban gardens and farms within miles of her pop-up experiences.</p><p>"As a chef, you realize you have a responsibility to your guests," she says, and for her, that responsibility means being transparent about ingredients, and even educating diners about what's on their plates. Growing up spending summers on a farm in Georgia, Chef Q has an innate curiosity about where and how her food is grown, and she recognizes the importance of farms in both urban and rural areas.</p><p>Commercial urban agriculture is <a href="https://bedfordandbowery.com/2020/07/as-the-pandemic-continues-urban-gardening-is-growing-on-new-yorkers/" target="_blank">on the rise</a>, with small-scale farms in <a href="https://ny.curbed.com/maps/new-york-urban-gardening-city-farmers-brooklyn" target="_blank">New York City</a> like <a href="https://www.gothamgreens.com/" target="_blank">Gotham Greens</a>, which reduces the amount of energy, land use and food waste in tight, underutilized spaces to produce herbs and roughage for the masses. In Austin, Texas, <a href="https://austinot.com/urban-farms-austin" target="_blank">backyard farms and urban gardens</a> sell ingredients to restaurants and markets throughout the region, as do <a href="https://www.latimes.com/lifestyle/story/2019-10-10/avenue33-urban-farm-grows-in-los-angeles" target="_blank">similar projects in Los Angeles</a>. In fact, innovations allowing farmers to <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-urban-farmers-are-learning-to-grow-food-without-soil-or-natural-light-88720" target="_blank">grow without soil or natural light</a> expand the potential for food sourcing in urban areas. Urban farming has increased by over <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/urban-agriculture-food-security-2628852711.html" target="_self">30 percent in the past 30 years</a>, with no indication of slowing down. Urban land could grow fruit and vegetables for 15 percent of the population, <a href="https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-03/uos-ulc031720.php" target="_blank">research shows</a>.</p>
<p>While the <a href="https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/grow-your-own-urban-farming-flourishes-in-coronavirus-lockdowns/" target="_blank">COVID-19 lockdowns have inspired a burst of urban farming</a> as people have been starting to grow their own fruits and vegetables at home, a renewed interest in culinary arts, plus a nostalgia for simpler times in many fast-paced big cities — just look at all the mid-century-era diners <a href="https://www.timeout.com/newyork/news/why-so-many-restaurants-opened-as-modern-diners-in-2019" target="_blank">popping up</a> in Manhattan right before the pandemic — may be accountable for the steady rise in urban farms. More consciousness about the environment, too, may lead small growers to want to reduce transportation emissions and take charge of the use of pesticides and fertilizers in their foods, but there's another great reason for urban farms to continue growing: feeding the masses. And with 68 percent of the world's population <a href="https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/2018-revision-of-world-urbanization-prospects.html" target="_blank">expected to live in urban areas by 2050</a>, it's time to take urban farming seriously as a viable, primary food source.</p><p>Despite being the wealthiest nation in the world, the United States had more than <a href="https://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america" target="_blank">37 million people</a> struggling with hunger in 2018. Since the pandemic, that number is expected to rise to up to <a href="https://www.feedingamerica.org/sites/default/files/2020-04/Brief_Impact%20of%20Covid%20on%20Food%20Insecurity%204.22%20%28002%29.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">54 million people</a>. And while systemic changes may one day be able to greatly reduce this number, a planting cycle is quicker than an election cycle. Bureaucracy may not immediately solve fair wages, but vegetable seeds may help communities when times are tough.</p>
Urban Farming as a Social Practice
<p>In her work, Chef Q has helped turn empty lots and abandoned buildings into urban farms, which allows neighbors to "take ownership in their communities" and also become educated consumers. In neighborhoods where the fancy grocery store is referred to as "<a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/04/01/whole-foods-prices-amazon-announces-cuts-and-more-prime-benefits/3335214002/" target="_blank">Whole Paycheck</a>," Chef Q has seen seed exchanges help folks start growing new produce, and regain agency over their food budgets and eating habits. Programs like the <a href="https://www.eventbrite.com/e/15th-annual-chicago-food-policy-summit-registration-89317576275" target="_blank">Chicago Food Policy Summit</a>, a free annual event on Chicago's South Side, help popularize urban farming and education and help provide Chicagoans with grants to start growing their own food. Though <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/30/dining/urban-farming-kids-healthy-food-new-york-city.html" target="_blank">gentrification may bring relief</a> to previously dubbed <a href="https://truthout.org/articles/how-do-people-living-in-a-food-desert-feed-themselves-amid-a-pandemic/" target="_blank">food deserts</a> — neighborhoods without a nearby source of fresh food — the slew of problems attached to gentrification, including higher costs of living, can easily make these new, more nutritious food options completely unaffordable to residents of the neighborhood.</p><p>As seen in smaller cities, urban farming may be the key for cities to be less reliant on rural areas, and also help <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-urban-agriculture-can-improve-food-security-in-us-cities-106435" target="_blank">achieve food security</a>. As Dr. Miguel Altieri, professor of agroecology at the University of California, Berkeley, has shown, diversified gardens in urban areas can yield a large range of produce and efficiently feed nearby residents.</p><p>Of course, land in cities is often at a premium, with many people living in little space. Shifting public land use to incorporate food growth and getting creative with rooftops, basements and unused buildings can seriously change the way cities consume fresh ingredients.</p><p>In fact, renewed efforts by the conservation organization <a href="https://www.worldwildlife.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">World Wildlife Fund</a> to <a href="https://www.fastcompany.com/90505222/why-the-world-wildlife-fund-is-trying-to-spark-an-indoor-farming-revolution" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">boost indoor farming</a> may revolutionize some sources of produce, particularly in cities. Repurposing unused indoor space, such as warehouses, can create direct sources of ingredients for restaurants or community-supported agriculture for neighbors. Indoor farming, while potentially more expensive, also allows urbanites from all walks of life to connect to the food system, repurpose food waste into compost and expand knowledge on growing food. <a href="https://www.gothamgreens.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Greenhouses like Gotham Greens</a>' rooftop spaces can supplement indoor and outdoor spaces, adding even more potential healthy food to local ecosystems.</p>Urban Gardening With Neighbors in Mind
<p>When she's not hosting pop-up dinners with culinarily curious Chicagoans, Chef Q volunteers with <a href="https://www.facebook.com/fosterstreetgarden/" target="_blank">Foster Street Urban Agriculture</a>, a nonprofit garden that aims to help end food insecurity in Evanston, the Chicago suburb home to Northwestern University. In the garden, Chef Q teaches kids how to water, plant, weed and grow produce. She'll notice a multigenerational interest: "Once kids taste zucchini, it's over," she jokes, of little ones bringing in parents and grandparents to learn to cook with more fresh produce. "They'll start [the program] eating hot Cheetos, and they're eating something green and leafy and won't go back."</p><p>Kids also just love being able to eat something that comes out of the ground and will take their passion back home, growing tomatoes in their windowsills or trying other small gardening projects in spaces available to them near home. Harvests from Foster Street are donated to food pantries and also sold at a local farmers market, where kids learn community-based entrepreneurial skills.</p><p>"Everyone eats, it's a common denominator," she says. "When food is on the table, people will have conversations."</p><p>Now, in the wake of COVID-19, urban farms have become more essential than ever. Chef Q has partnered with farms that would otherwise throw away produce without their major restaurant and hotel clients, to redistribute food to Chicagoans in need. She's noticed a spike in the price of fresh food, thanks in part to the expensive early May crops — peas, leeks and spinach. "It's been imperative," she says, of feeding the community with a local bounty of eggplant, microgreens, cheese and more farm-to-fork provisions.</p><p>Chef Q emphasizes that urban gardens still have to grow food to feed communities. Across the nation, we've seen victory gardens pop up in yards of homebound upper-middle-class Americans, planted with hope, thriftiness and a creative outlet in mind. But for those who don't have yards or ample space, shared urban gardens can still serve a local population. When people don't have money, growing food is a solution to provide nutrition, and perhaps even income. And it starts with advocacy, volunteers and outreach. "Plant something in the windowsill," Chef Q suggests, as an entryway into small-scale gardening. "It's essential. We can't stop."</p>
<p class=""><em>Melissa Kravitz Hoeffner is a writer based in New York. She is a writing fellow at <a href="https://independentmediainstitute.org/earth-food-life/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Earth | Food | Life</a>, a project of the Independent Media Institute. She's written for the New York Times, Bon Appetit, Food & Wine, Travel & Leisure, Conde Nast Traveler, Glamour, AlterNet, Cosmopolitan, Teen Vogue, Architectural Digest, Them and other publications. She holds a bachelor's degree in creative writing from Columbia University and is also at work on a novel. Follow her on Twitter: <a href="https://twitter.com/melissabethk" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">@melissabethk</a>.</em></p><p class=""><em>This article was produced by </em><a href="https://independentmediainstitute.org/earth-food-life/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><em>Earth | Food | Life</em></a><em>, a project of the Independent Media Institute.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- Urban Farming Is Revolutionizing Our Cities - EcoWatch ›
- 5 Examples of Creative Urban Agriculture From Around the World ... ›
- Urban Farming Booms During Coronavirus Lockdowns - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Cloth Masks Do Protect the Wearer - Breathing in Less Coronavirus Means You Get Less Sick
22 August
Insights + Opinion
Surakiet Ampun / EyeEm / Getty Images
By Monica Gandhi
Masks slow the spread of SARS-CoV-2 by reducing how much infected people spray the virus into the environment around them when they cough or talk. Evidence from laboratory experiments, hospitals and whole countries show that masks work, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends face coverings for the U.S. public. With all this evidence, mask wearing has become the norm in many places.
<p>
I am an infectious disease doctor and a <a href="https://profiles.ucsf.edu/monica.gandhi" target="_blank">professor of medicine</a> at the University of California, San Francisco. As governments and workplaces began to recommend or mandate mask wearing, my colleagues and I noticed an interesting trend. In places where most people wore masks, those who did get infected seemed <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-020-06067-8" target="_blank">dramatically less likely to get severely ill</a> compared to places with less mask-wearing.
</p><p>
It seems people <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-020-06067-8" target="_blank">get less sick if they wear a mask</a>.
</p><p>
<br/>
</p>
<script async="async" data-counter="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/143726/count?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" id="theconversation_tracker_hook" src="https://theconversation.com/javascripts/lib/content_tracker_hook.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<p>When you wear a mask – even a cloth mask – you typically are exposed to a <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.7326%2FM20-2567" target="_blank">lower dose of the coronavirus</a> than if you didn't. Both <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2009799117" target="_blank">recent experiments in animal models</a> using coronavirus and nearly a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nri2802" target="_blank">hundred years of viral research</a> show that lower viral doses usually means less severe disease.</p><p>No mask is perfect, and wearing one might not prevent you from getting infected. But it might be the difference between a case of COVID-19 that sends you to the hospital and a case so mild you don't even realize you're infected.</p>
Exposure Dose Determines Severity of Disease
<p>When you breathe in a respiratory virus, it immediately begins hijacking any cells it lands near to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.05.042" target="_blank">turn them into virus production machines</a>. The immune system tries to stop this process to halt the spread of the virus.</p><p>The amount of virus that you're exposed to – called the viral inoculum, or dose – <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nri2802" target="_blank">has a lot to do with how sick you get</a>. If the exposure dose is very high, the immune response can become overwhelmed. Between the virus taking over huge numbers of cells and the immune system's drastic efforts to contain the infection, a lot of damage is done to the body and a person can become very sick.</p><p>On the other hand, if the initial dose of the virus is small, the immune system is able to contain the virus with less drastic measures. If this happens, the person experiences fewer symptoms, if any.</p><p>This concept of viral dose being related to disease severity has been around for <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a118408" target="_blank">almost a century</a>. Many animal studies have shown that the higher the dose of a virus you give an animal, the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1258%2Fla.2012.011157" target="_blank">more sick it becomes</a>. In 2015, researchers tested this concept in human volunteers using a nonlethal flu virus and found the same result. The higher the flu virus dose given to the volunteers, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciu924" target="_blank">the sicker they became</a>.</p><p>In July, researchers published a paper showing that viral dose was related to disease severity in hamsters exposed to the coronavirus. Hamsters who were given a higher viral dose <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2009799117" target="_blank">got more sick than hamsters given a lower dose</a>.</p><p>Based on this body of research, it seems very likely that if you are exposed to SARS-CoV-2, the lower the dose, the less sick you will get.</p><p>So what can a person do to lower the exposure dose?</p>Masks Reduce Viral Dose
<p>Most infectious disease researchers and epidemiologists believe that the coronavirus is <a href="https://doi.org/doi:10.1001/jama.2020.12458" target="_blank">mostly spread by airborne droplets</a> and, to a lesser extent, tiny aerosols. Research shows that both cloth and surgical masks can <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.7326%2FM20-2567" target="_blank">block the majority of particles that could contain SARS-CoV-2</a>. While no mask is perfect, the goal is not to block all of the virus, but simply reduce the amount that you might inhale. Almost any mask will successfully block some amount.</p><p>Laboratory experiments have shown that good cloth masks and surgical masks could block at least <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/meq044" target="_blank">80% of viral particles from entering your nose and mouth</a>. Those particles and other contaminants will get trapped in the fibers of the mask, so the CDC recommends <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/how-to-wash-cloth-face-coverings.html" target="_blank">washing your cloth mask after each use if possible</a>.</p><p>The final piece of experimental evidence showing that masks reduce viral dose comes from another hamster experiment. Hamsters were divided into an unmasked group and a masked group by placing surgical mask material over the pipes that brought air into the cages of the masked group. Hamsters infected with the coronavirus were placed in cages next to the masked and unmasked hamsters, and air was pumped from the infected cages into the cages with uninfected hamsters.</p><p>As expected, the masked hamsters were less likely to get infected with COVID-19. But when some of the masked hamsters did get infected, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa644" target="_blank">they had more mild disease</a> than the unmasked hamsters.</p>Masks Increase Rate of Asymptomatic Cases
<p> In July, the CDC estimated that around <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html" target="_blank">40% of people infected with SARS-CoV-2 are asymptomatic</a>, and a <a href="https://doi.org/10.7326/M20-3012" target="_blank">number of other studies</a> have <a href="https://theconversation.com/can-people-spread-the-coronavirus-if-they-dont-have-symptoms-5-questions-answered-about-asymptomatic-covid-19-140531" target="_blank">confirmed this number</a>. </p><p> However, in places where everyone wears masks, the rate of asymptomatic infection seems to be much higher. In an <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/greg-mortimer-passengers-to-be-evacuated-after-almost-60-test-positive-for-coronaviru/ar-BB12ie3v" target="_blank">outbreak on an Australian cruise ship</a> called the Greg Mortimer in late March, the passengers were all given surgical masks and the staff were given N95 masks after the first case of COVID-19 was identified. Mask usage was apparently very high, and even though 128 of the 217 passengers and staff eventually tested positive for the coronavirus, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2020-215091" target="_blank">81% of the infected people remained asymptomatic</a>. </p><p> Further evidence has come from two more recent outbreaks, the first at a <a href="https://apnews.com/4b9d38f206db9ce5267a5898ac24f238" target="_blank">seafood processing plant in Oregon</a> and the second at a <a href="https://www.tysonfoods.com/news/news-releases/2020/6/tyson-foods-inc-releases-covid-19-test-results-northwest-arkansas" target="_blank">chicken processing plant in Arkansas</a>. In both places, the workers were provided masks and required to wear them at all times. In the outbreaks from both plants, nearly <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-020-06067-8" target="_blank">95% of infected people were asymptomatic</a>. </p><p> There is no doubt that universal mask wearing slows the spread of the coronavirus. My colleagues and I believe that evidence from laboratory experiments, case studies like the cruise ship and food processing plant outbreaks and long-known biological principles make a strong case that masks protect the wearer too. </p><p> The goal of any tool to fight this pandemic is to slow the spread of the virus and save lives. Universal masking will do both. </p><p> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/monica-gandhi-1080710" target="_blank">Monica Gandh</a> is a Professor of Medicine, Division of HIV, Infectious Diseases and Global Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco. </p><p> Disclosure statement: Monica Gandhi does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment. </p><p> <em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://theconversation.com/cloth-masks-do-protect-the-wearer-breathing-in-less-coronavirus-means-you-get-less-sick-143726" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>.</em><em></em> </p>
Read More
Show Less
A scenic view of West Papua. Reza Fakhrudin / Pexels
By Arkilaus Kladit
My name is Arkilaus Kladit. I'm from the Knasaimos-Tehit tribe in South Sorong Regency, West Papua Province, Indonesia. For decades my tribe has been fighting to protect our forests from outsiders who want to log it or clear it for palm oil. For my people, the forest is our mother and our best friend. Everything we need to survive comes from the forest: food, medicines, building materials, and there are many sacred sites in the forest.
<p>We have been taught for generations about how to maintain a good relationship with the forest. If it is cut down, it will be the same as cutting down our lives. This has been critical for us during this Covid pandemic because, with the shortage of rice, we have been relying on our traditional staple food, sago, that comes from the forest. And we have gone further by harvesting it to provide food for the surrounding area.</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzU0ODg4OS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxMjc0MjUzMX0.ryirsbiRERuALoNk4rGlvrhXBacs0wi90ZXnMa8jKuo/img.jpg?width=980" id="6aa7c" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="065f0a6f305cacc8928f8ee694cefa25" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Map of the Knasaimos traditional lands.
<p>The first threat to our forest was in 1988-89 when I was young. The government wanted to make a transmigration scheme settlement in our area but our elders rejected it because we were worried a lot of new people would harm the forest. Then in the early 2000s companies came wanting to log the valuable trees in our forest. After some years of struggle, we saw them off in 2005 but only after they did some damage to our forest.</p><p>The most recent threat is from oil palm. We heard news reports in 2012 there was an oil palm company going into a neighboring village. The news was quite alarming. Our tribe was sad. We had heard about thousands of hectares being cleared for oil palm plantations in Merauke and Sorong Districts. We thought that if oil palm is planted in a neighboring village, it is certain that the forests around our villages, Sira and Manggroholo, could also be under threat. But we stood firm on protecting our forest for our children and grandchildren. Our people consistently oppose oil palm, because we realize that our economic, customary and cultural lives depend heavily on the forest.</p><p>After our earlier fight with the illegal loggers, we decided in 2006 that we wanted to gain recognition for our customary forests. What has interested me most was getting the rights of the people to manage their forest. We worked with our Non-Government Organization friends, including Bentara and Greenpeace, to do participatory mapping of our own village lands and mark the boundary of all 81,446 hectares of our tribal lands. It is our custom to pass down from generation to generation where the boundaries of our forests are. Everything is collective, or is inherited collectively through the clans; it comes from our ancestors.</p>
<p>In 2008 we made a declaration to reject logging and palm oil. We invited the Regent and local Parliament to tell them that our area is small, if these forests are cut down, where do we go then? Where will we find wood to build our house? Where will we go to make our gardens? Where do we go to get medicines? If forests in these two villages are cut down, where will we move to?</p><p>So then we began the process of getting the recognition for our customary forests so that it will not be continually disturbed by logging licenses or permits for oil palm plantations. In 2014, after a long struggle, we had success with Village Forest permits for 3,545 hectares of customary forests of the two villages Mangroholo and Sira. We celebrated securing permits from the Ministry of Environment and Forestry as part of the government's social forestry program. We now have the legal rights to face the threat of illegal deforestation, oil palm planting that damages the environment.</p><p><span></span>A good example of how different it is now with the Village Forest permit. One day when we were patrolling in our forest we found merbau or ironwood trees (<em>Intsia bijuga</em>) had been illegally cut. Merbau is one of the main trees targeted by the illegal loggers. We caught the people doing this and issued them with a customary fine of Rp40 million ($2,700).</p><p>As well, since we obtained the status of Village Forest and we manage the forest ourselves, we are more organized in using Non Timber Forest Products (NTFP) such as damar (tree resin), agarwood, and sago, from a big palm that grows in our swamp forests. But our people have always made use of forests sustainably by taking forest products as needed. Especially with sago we have done a lot of work to turn it into a small enterprise that makes a good income for the village so we can pay things like school fees. We have had training, received new processing machines to speed up production, and help with local marketing to sell what we make. We have been providing food for the local region during Covid as the local government was buying our sago and giving it to the people. We are proud to make some money from our protected forest using our customary management without harming it. The forest is still here tall and strong.</p>
<p>But we still have a long way to go. We are now fighting for the recognition of the whole Knasaimos tribal area of 81,446 hectares as Customary Forest. We were very happy in 2018 when the Governor of West Papua Dominggus Mandacan made his <a href="https://www.idhsustainabletrade.com/uploaded/2018/12/MANOKWARI-DECLARATION-2018.pdf" target="_blank">commitment</a> to make 70% of West Papua Province protected areas. For us it means the Governor is fighting alongside us.</p><p>For the future we hope that the regent of our District, Mr. Samsudin, will soon issue a regional regulation that recognizes Knasaimos rights and forest, and that the Ministry of Environment and Forestry will support our application for a Customary Forest permit through the government Social Forestry Scheme so we can be on the frontline in supporting the government to protect Papua's forests.</p><p>I hope that every village in the Knasaimos customary area can experience the customary forest program to protect the future of our mother, the forest, and the rights to life of communities in Papua. Getting rights to forests in one's own area is the key to protecting the forest and community-based forest management. That is our aspiration, and this will make me very happy.</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://news.mongabay.com/2020/08/i-am-fighting-for-my-tribes-forest-it-gives-us-food-culture-and-life-commentary/" target="_blank">Mongabay</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- New Player Begins Clearing Rainforest for World's Largest Palm Oil ... ›
- Indonesia Forest-Clearing Ban Criticized as 'Government Propaganda' ›
- Forest Loss in Papua New Guinea Increases Domestic Violence ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Malte Mueller / Getty Images
By David Korten
Our present course puts humans on track to be among the species that expire in Earth's ongoing sixth mass extinction. In my conversations with thoughtful people, I am finding increasing acceptance of this horrific premise.
<p>The COVID-19 pandemic, along with climate change, drives home the lesson that we must honor and care for Earth. The increasing frequency of the appearance of deadly viruses reminds us of the consequences of disrupting the natural systems by which life on Earth organizes to create and maintain the conditions essential to both its own existence and ours.</p>
<p>This is a time for learning and conscious collective choice like no other in the human experience. Defining lessons are coming from a variety of "teachers," including the pandemic and climate change, protests against systemic racism, and oddly enough, Donald Trump.</p><p>Perhaps we can now recognize and accept the limits of Earth's regenerative systems and our need to help Earth heal from the damage of our recklessness. The Earth is strong, but also vulnerable. As Earth cares for us, we either care for it or bear the consequences of our recklessness.</p><p>The pandemic may be seen as a not-so-subtle warning to humanity that we may be sacrificed, if necessary, to protect the health of the planet. On the path to human extinction, the most vulnerable will go first, but there will be no human winners.</p>
<p>COVID-19's attack also exposes the culpability of the economic system that bears major responsibility for our assault against Earth and each other. We now see with ever greater clarity the disconnect between two economies. One is a financial economy devoted to generating unearned profits for monopolists and speculators. The other is an economy of Earth's regenerative systems and humans doing work essential to the well-being of people and planet. We can get along just fine without financial speculation, and labor devoted to wasteful or destructive purposes to make money for rich people. We cannot survive without the regenerative systems of a living Earth and the beneficial labor of both human and nonhuman beings.</p><p>We also see more clearly the devastating consequences of concentrating power in the hands of the financial elite. For example, the pandemic has exposed the long and vulnerable supply chains that only serve the interests of exploiters who locate industry where wages and taxes are lowest and environmental regulations are most lax to produce consumer goods for the world's affluent. Disruptions of those supply lines led to shortages of critical products, such as nose swabs and face masks, that we're only now realizing can be more quickly and securely obtained through local producers—assuming we still have some that can take on the job.</p><p>Another lesson we're learning involves the nature of money. COVID-19 prompted the U.S. Congress and Federal Reserve to create trillions of dollars in instant money for purposes both good and bad. Never has it been so clear that money is just a number that national governments can create from nothing. Consequently, lack of money should never be a society's defining constraint so long as idle or misdirected resources are available for new money to put to work meeting real needs.</p><p>Of course, meeting essential needs is very different from creating money to keep stock prices inflated and to bail out businesses, such as the corporate travel industry that electronic communication may have rendered obsolete. Too much of the money instantly created by Congress and the Fed was aimed at propping up financial markets while the real economy floundered. Therein lies another lesson: Follow the money and know its purpose, which takes us to the lessons of the Trump disaster.</p><p>With his perpetual deceptions, his assaults on the integrity and competence of government, and his persistent denial of responsibility for their devastating consequences, Trump reminds us of how much we depend on honest and functioning government at all system levels. He is forcing state and local governments (and also other nations) to take on new responsibilities because they know they cannot wait for leadership from his feckless administration.</p><p>In sending unidentified Department of Homeland Security officers to impose his will on the people of Portland, Oregon, and other cities, Trump is reminding us of the dangers of tyranny and the importance of having political leaders who are honest, intelligent, of sound mind, and committed to a strong democracy. We are becoming ever more conscious of the fatal error of electing politicians who believe government is inherently burdensome and best minimized.</p><p>These are all lessons essential to the future we seek and to our choices in the upcoming election.</p><p>During a July 23 <a href="https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?v=319548652768061&ref=watch_permalink" target="_blank">webinar hosted by YES! Media</a> that I took part in, Nafeez Ahmed, executive director of the System Shift Lab and research fellow at the Schumacher Institute for Sustainable Systems, noted that the <a href="https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?v=319548652768061&ref=watch_permalink" target="_blank">emergence of the new depends on the disintegration of the old</a>. While many of us have been eager to welcome the new, we are not always so ready to accept the disintegration of the old. Yet the point that Nafeez drove home in our webinar is that both are part of the process of transformation.</p><p>As the institutions of the imperial civilization of our past disintegrate, it exposes the extent to which their power has rested on a foundation of war, racism, and violence devoted to enforcing mass servitude and securing the rights of property owners. Succumbing to the enticements of money worship, we celebrate the successes of a miniscule super-wealthy minority, and the fiction that we might one day join them.</p><p>Let us welcome the growing recognition that returning to business as usual is neither possible nor desirable. We must accept our current mission to birth a <a href="https://davidkorten.org/home/ecological-civilization/" target="_blank">new civilization</a> devoted to the well-being of people and Earth: A civilization in which money is just a tool, and nurturance of life is the prime purpose.</p><p><span></span><em>David Korten is co-founder of YES! Media, president of the Living Economies Forum, a member of the Club of Rome, and the author of influential books, including "When Corporations Rule the World" and "Change the Story, Change the Future: A Living Economy for a Living Earth." His work builds on lessons from the 21 years he and his wife, Fran, lived and worked in Africa, Asia, and Latin America on a quest to end global poverty.</em></p><p><em><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.yesmagazine.org/opinion/2020/07/30/covid-earth-economy-climate-change/" target="_blank">YES! Magazine</a>.<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/r/entryeditor/2646932009#/" target="_self"></a></em><em></em></em></p>
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Women sort potatoes in the Andes Mountains near Cusco Peru on July 7, 2014. Thomas O'Neill / NurPhoto / Getty Images
By Alejandro Argumedo
August 9 is the International Day of the World's Indigenous Peoples – a celebration of the uniqueness of the traditions of Quechua, Huli, Zapotec, and thousands of other cultures, but also of the universality of potatoes, bananas, beans, and the rest of the foods that nourish the world. These crops did not arise out of thin air. They were domesticated over thousands of years, and continue to be nurtured, by Indigenous people. On this day we give thanks to these cultures for the diversity of our food.
<p>Yes, even in a globalized world and food system. Most diversity in crops – and livestock – is still found in the regions where they have been around longest, adapting to climatic extremes, pests, and diseases through millennia interaction with human cultures – as we have weathered our own storms and pandemics. Known as primary regions of crop and livestock diversity, these places are central to the present and future viability of food systems. They are also the homelands of many Indigenous peoples.</p>
<p>For centuries, crop diversity has enriched the world, but has been taken out of the hands of Indigenous people in doing so. That story is only beginning to shift as the rest of the world starts to give Indigenous farmers the respect they are due. Community initiatives like the <a href="https://parquedelapapa.org/" target="_blank">Parque de la Papa</a> (Potato Park), in the primary region of potato diversity in the Andes of Peru, are connecting with worldwide conservation efforts on the farmers' own terms.</p><p>Six Quechua communities established the Parque to ensure the survival of the thousands of traditional potato cultivars they grow. They then co-designed a unique agreement with the <a href="https://cipotato.org/" target="_blank">International Potato Center</a> genebank in Lima and the nonprofit <a href="https://andes.org.pe/" target="_blank">Asociacion ANDES</a> to return 410 native potato varieties to the Parque communities. Scientists had collected these from the region's communities since the 1960s, but many had disappeared from farmers' fields in the recent decades. That first agreement led to more collaborative research and monitoring, and today the Parque's diversity is conserved in farmers' fields, in new community seedbanks, in the CIP genebank in Lima, and, as a final safety backup, 7,000 miles north in the <a href="https://www.seedvault.no/" target="_blank">Svalbard Global Seed Vault</a> – where the Indigenous farmers who deposited them still retain their rights over their seeds.</p><p>Indigenous farmers and cooks in the primary regions of diversity are resilient. They know all about getting through trying times. Through it all, they have persisted: through loss of access to land and other resources; through industrialization, subsidies, and trade agreements that undermine rural livelihoods; through civil strife and political neglect. Often working in places of extreme topography, they have faced the most severe impacts of the climate catastrophe. This year they have been struck disproportionally, sometimes threatened in their very existence, by the COVID-19 pandemic.</p>
<p>In some countries, legislation finally respects their rights to traditional knowledge and livelihoods. Yet a larger transformation is still needed – to redress injustices, secure access to land, and generate a greater range of opportunities in food and agriculture.</p><p>I believe that a key agent of this transformation will be a global network that is already beginning to unite stewards of food traditions in primary regions of diversity. The potential is clear in the direct connections that Indigenous communities are making with chefs, civil society, and commercial endeavors to create – together – market opportunities for agriculturally resilient and nutritious local foods. It is encouraging that consumers are increasingly showing a willingness to try diverse foods, while recognizing the work of farming communities. A boom in community-based development and wider marketing of products made with local crop and livestock diversity is a small sign of the big shift coming.</p><p>Another emerging opportunity for Indigenous communities is the increased capacity to learn from the successes and challenges of others. While communities in primary regions of diversity often maintain a broad menu of domesticated and wild species, their food systems generally center on a few key species. Potatoes and quinoa in parts of the Andes; maize and beans in Mesoamerica; bananas and tubers in the highlands of Papua New Guinea: such emblematic foods can be pillars around which to co-organize global networks of custodians of agricultural biodiversity, building on existing networks of small-scale and Indigenous farmers. One such effort is hosted by the <a href="https://inmip.net/" target="_blank">International Network for Mountain Indigenous Peoples</a>. Inspired by the Parque de la Papa, it now includes communities in Bolivia, China, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Guatemala, India, Kenya, Mexico, Papua New Guinea, Peru, and Tajikistan, each organized around different emblematic Indigenous crops. With time, the initial focus on relatively "charismatic" crops can be leveraged to benefit other, less well-known species and their stewards, too.</p><p>I draw hope and excitement from seeing Indigenous communities achieve recognition in local, national, and international policy arenas, and watching them strengthen their work by seeking out collaborations based on mutual respect. That kind of collaboration can reach across dramatically different scales, from farmers' fields, homes, and tables, to community actions like local seedbanks, to the large public genebanks that make crop conservation a global effort, and a global good. Meanwhile, redressing the imbalances that disadvantage Indigenous communities, and undervalue the diversity they generate and maintain, will mean reframing this diversity and its engendering biocultural processes as central community assets.</p><p>Celebrating Indigenous people on August 9 is not just about having a party; it helps keeps diversity and community on their feet as globalization shifts the ground from under us all.</p><p><em>Alejandro Argumedo is Director of Programs and Andes Amazon Lead of Swift Foundation (<a href="http://www.swiftfoundation.org/" target="_blank">www.swiftfoundation.org</a>); he is a recognized indigenous peoples' food rights activist currently acting as the international coordinator of the International Network of Mountain Indigenous Peoples (INMIP).</em></p>
From Your Site Articles
- 28 Organizations Promoting Indigenous Food Sovereignty - EcoWatch ›
- 10 Indigenous Foods You Should Be Eating - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Danny Choo / CC BY-SA 2.0
By Olivia Sullivan
One of the many unfortunate outcomes of the coronavirus pandemic has been the quick and obvious increase in single-use plastic products. After COVID-19 arrived in the United States, many grocery stores prohibited customers from using reusable bags, coffee shops banned reusable mugs, and takeout food with plastic forks and knives became the new normal.
<p>Despite recent scientific evidence that <a href="https://storage.googleapis.com/planet4-international-stateless/2020/06/26618dd6-health-expert-statement-reusables-safety.pdf" target="_blank">reusables don't transmit the virus</a>, the plastic industry has <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-06-08/is-plastic-the-coronavirus-hero-the-plastics-industry-thinks-so" target="_blank">lobbied hard</a> for a return to all things disposable plastic. Inevitably, a lot of that plastic will continue to flow into our environment.</p><p>While COVID-19 has certainly thrown a wrench into the hard-earned progress we'd been making in reducing waste, eliminating plastic pollution entirely was always going to be challenging — with or without a pandemic. The jarring rise of single-use plastics is an expedited version of a familiar trend. Plastic production has been <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/07/plastic-age/533955/" target="_blank">steadily increasing</a> for quite some time.</p><p>As a zero-waste advocate, I've seen how the tsunami of plastic continuously being produced and flooding our planet has made achieving zero-waste goals incredibly difficult. The sheer amount makes it hard to safely and efficiently dispose of plastic, no matter how hard we try.</p>
<p>But as I examine the problem, and search for solutions, I keep coming back to one noteworthy example.</p><p>In 2003 the small Japanese town of Kamikatsu set an ambitious zero-waste declaration, aiming to be 100% waste-free by 2020. The goal was to produce no trash, meaning everything from food packaging to unwanted clothing to yesterday's newspaper should be reused, repurposed into new goods, or recycled.</p>
<div id="b7811" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="909a9d9b34be97cbd835be64fb59c05c"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1181178899704639489" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">#DYK decorative leaves adorning Japanese dishes create jobs? Seniors in #Kamikatsu, Tokushima, grow & collect them,… https://t.co/XP1d96tG47</div> — The Gov't of Japan (@The Gov't of Japan)<a href="https://twitter.com/JapanGov/statuses/1181178899704639489">1570449969.0</a></blockquote></div><p>Now that 2020 has arrived, we can see the result: In the 17 years since establishing its goal, Kamikatsu transitioned from openly incinerating all its trash to reusing and recycling 80% of its waste.</p><p>While the town made incredible progress, it ultimately fell short of its 100% goal. Its main issue? Unrecyclable plastic packaging and mixed materials still end up in the trash.</p><p>As <a href="https://phys.org/news/2019-06-japan-town-recycle.html" target="_blank">one resident explained</a> to the AFP news agency last year, "Our lifestyle depends mainly on plastic. Consumers can reduce plastic waste to a certain extent, but we'll still have waste if producers keep making plastic products."</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzU0MjYzOC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1OTUyNDMxM30.n_UVlEF30a9o3Q-BOJj3vViY7YVKv7d-I3EeulDxWnQ/img.jpg?width=980" id="4df79" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="e10cd8a3bc3c98e43ec7b68464d35cc1" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Kamikatsu, Japan. Yuki Shimazu / CC BY-SA 2.0
<p>This reveals a worldwide truth: Even products made mostly from easily recyclable materials like paper, aluminum or cardboard can't be sorted and recycled if they contain plastic components that can't be separated.</p><p>The truth is, some materials simply aren't recyclable, and <a href="https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/7/e1700782" target="_blank">only 9%</a> of all the plastic ever created has <em>been </em>recycled. As Kamikatsu's residents have painstakingly proven, no matter how many categories consumers sort their waste into or how diligently they scrub down their plastic food containers, most plastics <a href="https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Greenpeace-Report-Circular-Claims-Fall-Flat.pdf" target="_blank">cannot be recycled</a>.</p><p>Meanwhile we keep hearing the <a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/504091-the-insanity-of-plastic-recycling" target="_blank">industry-driven narrative</a> that recycling can stop plastic from choking our marine life or littering our natural places. That's intentionally misleading.</p><p>Around the world, as in Kamikatsu, plastic is everywhere. With excessive amounts of plastic products and packaging stocked on store shelves, it's clear that zero-waste goals cannot be achieved by consumers alone. Plastic is not a "zero waste" material, so in order to achieve zero waste, companies must stop making so much plastic.</p><img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzU0MjY0MC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxOTExMDAxNX0.YpMVEj2xK5D4TDypbZJGuJXnjMa17zprUVWxexuy5mk/img.jpg?width=980" id="a5cff" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="2db1e7aa34db8c561ecab63c8ee06ff2" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Marine debris collected at Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument. NOAA
<p>We can achieve that. The first steps include banning some of the worst and most polluting single-use plastics, placing a pause on the development of new plastics facilities, and protecting state and local governments' ability to enact more stringent regulations.</p><p>We must also shift the paradigm by holding producers responsible for the waste they create. By requiring new plastic products to contain recycled plastic and making producers fund the collection and recycling of plastic products, producers would be incentivized to design longer lasting products that can <em>actually</em> be reused and recycled.</p><p>These goals — outlined in numerous scientific studies and advocacy reports — have some forward motion. In the United States, a federal bill was recently introduced in both the House and the Senate, the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/5845" target="_blank">Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act</a>. If passed this bill — or others like it on the local, state or national levels — could help move the world beyond single-use plastics and make that needed systemic change a reality.</p><p>The bill hasn't moved forward since it was introduced this past February, but the world is still on a deadline. A recent study published in the journal <a href="https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/07/22/science.aba9475" target="_blank"><em>Science</em></a> looked at rising levels of plastic production and said "coordinated global action is urgently needed to reduce plastic consumption, increase rates of reuse, waste collection and recycling, expand safe disposal systems and accelerate innovation in the plastic value chain."</p><p>Requiring producers to stop making nonrecyclable products designed to be thrown out is the first step toward achieving that goal. Only then will Kamikatsu and other towns, cities and countries around the world finally be able to eliminate plastic pollution and reach 100% zero waste.</p><p><em>The opinions expressed above are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of </em>The Revelator<em>, the Center for Biological Diversity or their employees.</em></p><p><a href="https://therevelator.org/author/oliviasullivan/" target="_blank">Olivia Sullivan</a> <em><em>is a zero waste associate with the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (U.S. PIRG) working on a campaign to move the United States beyond plastic.</em></em></p><p><em><em><span></span>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://therevelator.org/cities-zero-waste/" target="_blank">The Revelator</a>. </em></em></p>From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Coronavirus Shines Light on Zoos as Danger Zones for Deadly Disease Transmission Between Humans and Animals
03 August
Insights + Opinion
An elephant at Roger Williams Park Zoo in Providence, Rhode Island. In Defense of Animals
By Marilyn Kroplick
The term "zoonotic disease" wasn't a hot topic of conversation before the novel coronavirus started spreading across the globe and upending lives. Now, people are discovering how devastating viruses that transfer from animals to humans can be. But the threat can go both ways — animals can also get sick from humans. There is no better time to reconsider the repercussions of keeping animals captive at zoos, for the sake of everyone's health.
<p>COVID-19, the illness that's caused by the novel coronavirus, is the result of human contact with animals, though the exact source remains a subject of debate. The risk of such zoonotic disease transmission drastically increases in any setting <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/apr/08/human-impact-on-wildlife-to-blame-for-spread-of-viruses-says-study-aoe" target="_blank">where wild animals are confined</a><a href="http://theguardian.com/environment/2020/apr/08/human-impact-on-wildlife-to-blame-for-spread-of-viruses-says-study-aoe" target="_blank"> in close proximity to humans</a>, including public display facilities like zoos. Unfortunately, the risks posed by zoonotic transmission go beyond COVID-19. A recent <a href="https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-04/uoc-asa041320.php" target="_blank">study</a> found that more than 40 percent of zoo animals in Spain were infected with a parasite that can be passed to humans and causes a disease known as <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/parasites/toxoplasmosis/gen_info/faqs.html" target="_blank">toxoplasmosis</a>, which can lead to damage to the brain, eyes and other organs in human beings. Across the U.S., another dangerous zoonotic disease has long been lurking in our midst at zoos: <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/tb/topic/basics/default.htm" target="_blank">tuberculosis</a> (TB).</p>
<p>TB is a deadly, highly infectious disease that has long existed in captive populations of African and Asian <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/elephants">elephants</a> in zoos and circuses across the U.S. According to the World Health Organization, TB is one of the <a href="https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/tuberculosis" target="_blank">top ten </a>causes of death worldwide, killing millions of people each year. Although TB rates have been on the decline for decades in the U.S., captive elephants represent a persistent <a href="https://slate.com/technology/2015/03/elephant-tuberculosis-epidemic-zoo-and-circus-animals-passing-tb-to-humans-and-one-another.html" target="_blank">reservoir</a> of the virus. Incredibly, "licensees and registrants who own elephants" are <a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/newsroom/stakeholder-info/sa_by_date/sa_2015/sa_10/ct_elephant_tb_policy" target="_blank">not required</a> to test elephants for the virus. Even if they were, these tests, known as "trunk washes," are difficult to conduct and can be unreliable. This means that zoos may be bringing the unsuspecting public into contact with infected elephants. Because TB is no longer common in the U.S., children are not vaccinated against it, making them particularly susceptible.</p>
<p>The risk of elephants transmitting TB to humans is generally greater among those who work closely with elephants, though it is thought that TB can spread from elephants to humans <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3166032/" target="_blank">through air</a> also. The risk of wider contagion, especially to zoo guests, is therefore a possibility. Many zoo exhibits bring people through indoor barns where elephants spend much of their time, separated only by bars and a few feet of space. Even more intimate encounters, such as rides or feedings that enable people to come into direct physical contact with elephants, are particularly concerning given their amplified transmission opportunities.</p><p>TB has long been known as a <a href="https://www.salon.com/2017/02/19/dont-think-about-contagious-elephants-whose-job-is-it-to-combat-and-contain-tuberculosis/" target="_blank">potentially serious issue in U.S. zoos</a>. Many people have been infected over the years, including, as recently as 2019. In 2013, seven staff members were <a href="https://www.oregonlive.com/health/2016/01/officials_identify_tuberculosi.html" target="_blank">infected</a> at the Oregon Zoo in Portland, following an outbreak among three bull elephants. Elephant infections persisted there into <a href="https://www.wweek.com/news/2019/07/10/pregnant-asian-elephant-at-oregon-zoo-may-have-tuberculosis/#:~:text=The%20Oregon%20Zoo%20announced%20today,Chendra%20as%20potentially%20having%20TB." target="_blank">2019</a>. Also, last year, some staff members <a href="https://www.pdza.org/connect/newsroom/press-releases/staff-test-positive-for-latent-tuberculosis/" target="_blank">tested positive</a> for latent TB at the Point Defiance Zoo & Aquarium in Tacoma, Washington. Both the Bronx Zoo in New York City and the Saint Louis Zoo in Missouri also have had elephants test positive in recent years.</p>
<p>The threat of deadly disease transmission, however, does not only affect humans. In a process called <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3938448/" target="_blank">reverse zoonosis</a>, diseases such as influenza A virus, herpes simplex 1, measles and methicillin-resistant <em>Staphylococcus aureus</em> (MRSA) have been documented as passing from humans to animals. Regarding TB, <a href="https://tinyurl.com/y9ztj4ls" target="_blank">studies have shown</a> that the causative agent that leads to human infection of TB is also present in elephants, suggesting a reverse zoonosis of the disease from humans to elephants. This opens the possibility that humans could actually be the <a href="https://tinyurl.com/y9ztj4ls" target="_blank">cause</a> of TB infections in captive elephants.</p><p>Another incident of reverse zoonosis occurred at the Bronx Zoo recently. In April 2020 the zoo announced that one of its tigers <a href="https://newsroom.wcs.org/News-Releases/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/14010/A-Tiger-at-Bronx-Zoo-Tests-Positive-for-COVID-19-The-Tiger-and-the-Zoos-Other-Cats-Are-Doing-Well-at-This-Time.aspx" target="_blank">tested positive</a> for COVID-19. While no other cats were tested, the tiger's sister, along with two other tigers and three African lions, developed symptoms including a dry cough, suggesting they might have also been infected.</p>
<p>One of the main reasons that zoos can be hotbeds for deadly disease transmission — which threatens elephants, tigers and other captive animals as well as human beings — is that captive animals can suffer from compromised immune systems due to the confines of captivity, rendering them more susceptible to illness. In many facilities, tigers and elephants are often held in cramped enclosures that bear little resemblance to their natural wild habitats. They can be forced to perform or interact with the public on a daily basis or endure living in solitary confinement. The Bronx Zoo, for example, has forced an elephant named Happy to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/03/nyregion/bronx-zoo-elephant-lawsuit-happy.html" target="_blank">live alone</a> since 2006, a crushing sentence for a highly social species. These types of living conditions can cause a range of physical and psychological ailments, which have been <a href="https://www.idausa.org/campaign/elephants/10-worst-zoos/" target="_blank">well documented</a>. Captive elephants tend to live shortened lifespans in contrast to those in the wild and suffer from diseases and conditions virtually unseen in the wild. The cumulative effect of these factors renders elephants prone to the TB contagion.</p>
<p>The fact that TB has continued to infect captive elephant populations in the U.S. for decades reveals the extent to which zoos are incapable of providing adequate living conditions to prevent the spread of this disease, despite their best efforts. While zoos and their supporters continue to argue that keeping animals captive is necessary to raise awareness and get people to care about them, seeing animals trapped in unnatural environments that prevent them from thriving doesn't do anything to teach us about how they live or how they should be recognized, respected and protected in the wild.</p><p>We can hope that the world will soon return to some semblance of normalcy, but if this pandemic has taught us anything, it's that we can't continue with business as usual when it comes to our relationship with wildlife and the environment — at least not if we want to survive. In the meantime, we can protect captive animals and ourselves by avoiding zoos.</p>
<p><em>Marilyn Kroplick is the president of <a href="https://www.idausa.org/" target="_blank">In Defense of Animals</a></em><em>.</em><br/></p>From Your Site Articles
- Can Your Pets Get and Transmit Coronavirus? - EcoWatch ›
- Jane Goodall: COVID-19 Is Result of Our Unhealthy Relationship ... ›
- North Carolina Pug Tests Positive for Coronavirus, Could Be First ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
An example of a dry field in San Joachin Valley, California, during the California drought that lasted from 2012 to 2016. Citizens of the Planet / Education Images / Universal Images Group / Getty Images
By Jose Pablo Ortiz Partida
The immediate emergency of COVID-19 has been a powerful reminder that the most valuable things in our lives are our families, friends, and the welfare of our communities.
<p>The current pandemic is a threat to those closest to us today in a way that presages what we will experience on an accelerating basis due to the climate emergency. In a place like California's San Joaquin Valley (SJV), Latinos account for <a href="https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-07-25/coronavirus-covid-19-farm-workers-san-joaquin-valley" target="_blank">70 percent</a> of COVID-19 cases, even though they represent 42 percent of the population. Improving access to clean and affordable water even as the pandemic grows more urgent, is critical to reducing the types of burdens worsened by the COVID-19 crisis. Continuing the hard work on groundwater sustainability required by the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) could lessen the impact of future crises in the valley. The low level of preparation communities have experienced around the pandemic, echos what these same communities face for water management on a daily basis and will face with future climate change threats unless fundamental changes are made locally.</p>
Thousands of People in the SJV Live Without Reliable Access to Water.
<p>California is the wealthiest state in the most prosperous country in the world, and yet, there are close to one million people living without reliable access to safe, clean, and affordable drinking water. Most of these people are <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/21/us/california-central-valley-tainted-water.html" target="_blank">concentrated in disadvantaged communities</a> in the SJV. California identifies <a href="https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/sb535" target="_blank">disadvantaged communities</a> as areas that experience disproportionate levels of a combination of poverty, air and water pollution, high unemployment, and high rates of cardiovascular diseases and asthma. According to a report from the UC Davis Center for Regional Change, residents in these communities are <a href="https://regionalchange.ucdavis.edu/publication/water-justice" target="_blank">over 60% Hispanic</a>.</p><p><span></span>The SJV is one of the most productive agricultural regions in the world, <a href="https://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/water-and-the-future-of-the-san-joaquin-valley-overview.pdf" target="_blank">producing more than half of California's agricultural output</a> with over 200 different crops and annual revenue of about 20 billion US dollars. The astonishing volume of water that agriculture requires has led to over-exploitation of groundwater and the continuous lowering of groundwater levels that has impacted water quality and quantity.</p><p>Groundwater is the primary source for household water needs and agricultural water supply. Yet, thousands of people are unable to drink and use the water in the SJV, because there are multiple contaminants in it. Some of the water pollution comes from natural sources and includes substances like arsenic, but most of it has emerged due to agricultural practices. These contaminants include pesticides and nitrates, which are linked to cancer, birth defects, and blue baby syndrome.</p><p>In years with average precipitation, water flowing in California's rivers from rain and melted snowpack meets about 60 percent of the state's water demand and groundwater meets the remainder. However, during dry years water supply sources shift and put severe stress on groundwater levels. During the California drought from 2012 to 2016, groundwater use, mostly from agricultural water pumping, <a href="https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/04/droughts-exposed-california-s-thirst-groundwater-now-state-hopes-refill-its-aquifers" target="_blank">grew to 80 percent</a> in some regions of the SJV increasing overdraft. Groundwater overdraft occurs when water extractions exceed recharge into an aquifer. An analogy is your bank account; extract more money than is put in, and your account will go dry. Aquifers are like a shared account, with some people taking out more than others. Consequently, thousands of domestic wells ran dry, unable to reach water due to lowered groundwater levels, in large part due to increased agricultural water pumping, and affecting thousands of people across the valley.</p><p>We think about drought as standalone events, but in reality, human actions triggered by droughts can have effects that continue long after the drought has ended, like permanently lowering the water table. In the SJV, the last drought has permanently reduced the capacity of some aquifers because overdraft left air in between soil particles instead of water, and the soils subsided eliminating the space for water storage. Overdraft also leads to infrastructure damage from land subsidence, that is when the ground levels drop, plus reduction of surface water, and an increase in water quality problems. That range of concerns brought by overdraft formed the basis of SGMA.</p>Groundwater Sustainability Plans Could Fix Part of the Problem but Are Currently Inadequate.
<p>SGMA passed in 2014 and is the first legislation in California to mandate sustainable management of groundwater resources. SGMA is intended to bring about groundwater sustainability by the year 2040. Local water agencies describe the means to achieve this goal in their Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs). For those interested in the details of SGMA, <a href="https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Groundwater-Management/SGMA-Groundwater-Management" target="_blank">here is a thorough description of it</a>. The focus of this post is on the latest developments.</p><p>The 21 most critically over-drafted groundwater basins submitted their GSPs at the beginning of the year and are now under review by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). External reviews of these plans argue that some of them do not sufficiently address current and future impacts on disadvantaged communities. For example, the Groundwater Leadership Forum (a group of organizations funded by the <a href="https://waterfdn.org/" target="_blank">Water Foundation</a> focused on ensuring the success of SGMA and of which UCS is part) also reviewed several GPSs and found gaps in how drinking water, climate change, stakeholder involvement, managed wetlands, and groundwater-dependent ecosystems were addressed in the plans. The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) reviewed 36 plans submitted for basins overlapping the SJV. They found Kings Basin (surrounding Fresno) stands out for having the highest number of domestic wells that may go dry, about 600 of them, under the proposed water level sustainable thresholds and yet the local groundwater plan considers that an <a href="https://www.ppic.org/blog/will-groundwater-sustainability-plans-end-the-problem-of-dry-drinking-water-wells/" target="_blank">insignificant impact from continued overdraft</a>. This is concerning and unacceptable. Public comments can be consulted in the <a href="https://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/gsp/all" target="_blank">SGMA portal from DWR</a>.</p><p>I, and many others are concerned that multiple GSPs have questionable integrations of climate change projections. GSPs are considering numerous projects to tackle their local overdraft, yet they are not planning for the uncertain future that climate change is bringing. To reduce some of the vulnerabilities that we see now, GSPs need to integrate climate change and show benefits on the range of future scenarios.</p><p>Another concern is that on May 14, the <a href="http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/FullBudgetSummary.pdf" target="_blank">Governor announced</a> a $40 million cut on funding for SGMA. Part of the money was expected to support 37 new staff positions at DWR to uphold its statutory obligation on reviewing GSPs. While the budget still allocated $26 million of existing Proposition 68 bond funds to help with implementation projects in critically overdraft basin, it is unlikely that DWR will have the capacity to review the GSPs thoroughly. However, the governor's budget did prioritize safe and affordable drinking water and the State Water Board approved <a href="http://californiawaternewsdaily.com/infrastructure/state-water-board-approves-2020-21-funds-to-improve-access-to-healthy-drinking-water/" target="_blank">$130 million for 2020-2021</a> to projects that support such objective on vulnerable communities.</p>Without Bold Action and Preparation, Climate Change Threats May Bring Similar Impacts to Those of COVID-19.
<p>The lack of drinking water causes many residents in the valley to rely on bottled water as their primary source for drinking and cooking. Panic buying at the beginning of the pandemic left stores across the valley without bottled water. In the case of COVID-19, unsafe and unreliable access to water has endangered a multitude of low-income communities by preventing them from performing protective, hygienic acts, handwashing, in particular, and forcing them to go to public water supply kiosks. As we've all learned, hand washing is one of the most necessary measures needed to slow and stop the spread of a virus. Without a correct implementation of groundwater sustainability plans under SGMA, many of these risks will continue.</p><p>Shelter in place orders resulted in people losing their jobs and hence, their source of income and being unable to pay utility services. Small utility services were also impacted because of low economic margins of operations in which small drops in income translate to being unable to provide service. Fortunately, many organizations and individuals wrote a letter to Governor Newsom that prompted him to issue an <a href="https://www.gov.ca.gov/2020/04/02/governor-newsom-issues-executive-order-protecting-homes-small-businesses-from-water-shutoffs/" target="_blank">executive order</a> protecting homes and small businesses from water shutoffs.</p><p>We now have the opportunity to give meaning to these current hardships by learning from them to prevent hardships from climate change. Climate change is a threat intensifier. In this case, the threat is a virus, and historical inequities and water vulnerabilities increased its impact on the most vulnerable among us. An example of the unpreparedness of the system to support our vulnerabilities during times of crisis is seen in the case of school children who rely on school lunches as their main meal of the day but are now unable to access this resource due to school closures. Some farmworkers, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/02/us/coronavirus-undocumented-immigrant-farmworkers-agriculture.html" target="_blank">while cataloged as 'essential' by the federal government</a> during this crisis, are undocumented and were not part of the stimulus package. The height of irony is <a href="https://www.kvpr.org/post/covid-19-deepens-food-insecurity-san-joaquin-valley" target="_blank">farmworkers struggled with access to food distribution</a> when they needed it.</p>There Is No Scenario Where Water Is Not Absolutely Necessary to Lessen the Impacts During a Crisis.
<p>One of my <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/cecilia-moura/covid-19-air-pollution-and-health-impacts-an-interview-with-pediatric-pulmonologist-dr-denise-serebrisky" target="_blank">colleagues wrote</a> that moments of crisis often expose the weak points of a system. In the SJV, the weak points of the water system have been exposed for years and won't be strengthened without managing water resources sustainably. This is evidenced by the number of people in the SJV without access to safe, clean, and affordable drinking water. Considering that about <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/28/california-water-wells-dry-sgma" target="_blank">95% of valley residents</a> depend on groundwater for at least part of their water, it is critical that GSPs explicitly include strategies for addressing some of the current and future water issues in the SJV.</p><p>Numerous, various kinds of climate threats will come, whether they develop as <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-0804-2" target="_blank">floods, heatwaves, wildfires, droughts, or other climate hazards</a>, we need to be prepared and do everything possible to improve sustainable water management for all. While future climate-change-derived crises most likely will be different than COVID-19, there is no scenario where water is not absolutely necessary to lessen the impacts.</p>
Read More
Show Less
President Donald Trump holds up a "Trump Digs Coal" sign at a Make America Great Again Rally in Huntington, West Virginia on August 3, 2017. SAUL LOEB / AFP / Getty Images
By Varshini Prakash and John Podesta
At the 2019 Republican Retreat, Donald Trump promised his allies that he would make this election about climate change: "I want to bring them way down the pike," he said, "before we start criticizing the Green New Deal."
<p><br/></p>
<p>At his Tulsa rally in June, and in many of the campaign "speeches" he's given since then, the president's long riff on the climate proved he hasn't forgotten the promise he made to Republicans. Trump's obsession with the Green New Deal—from his fixation on the completely debunked notion that windmills cause cancer, to his nonsense about cows and hamburgers, to his racist and misogynistic ramblings about Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who introduced the Green New Deal Resolution—is much more central to his reelection effort than it appears at first glance.</p><p>For whatever reason, Trump has decided that the Green New Deal—a proposal to save our country from environmental and economic disaster—is going to be his main electoral punching bag in the 2020 campaign.</p><p>If that's the fight he wants to pick, we say: Bring it on. And new polling shows the Democratic Party should welcome the fight, too.</p><p>Trump and the GOP appear poised to spend the election attacking Joe Biden's plan to create millions of high-paying jobs by falsely arguing that it will cost $100 trillion, and destroy all the cows, cars, and airplanes. The goal of these absurd lies is to distract us from the truth: He and his party have no plan to address the climate crisis aside from further lining the pockets of oil and gas executives. But the American people want climate action.</p>
<p>New polling from Climate Power 2020 finds 71 percent favor bold government action on climate change, while only 18 percent oppose it. And talking about climate moves votes for Democrats. When presented as a choice between a Democratic congressional candidate in favor of bold climate action and an anti-action Republican, the vote moves 14 points in the Democrat's favor. This jump is even bigger—21 points—for centrist Republican and Democratic voters. These numbers are astronomical, and they make clear that running aggressively on climate is the Democratic Party's biggest political opportunity this election.</p><p>Trump's record on climate is damning. He put oil and coal lobbyists in charge of protecting our environment—and they immediately went to work rolling back over 100 environmental safeguards, allowing corporate polluters to pump more toxic pollution and chemicals into our air and water. So that companies like Chevron can keep making billions in profits and pay zero in federal taxes, he's waged a war on our clean energy industry that's cost our economy over 1.1 million jobs. Future generations will face devastating health impacts and extreme weather disasters, all because Trump spent four years allowing fossil fuel lobbyists to dictate his every move on the climate, clean energy, and the environment.</p>
<p>Trump is picking this fight because he thinks he can convince voters that bold climate action is a threat, not a necessity. But hyperbolic attacks don't work. Polling shows the American people see it for what it is: another distraction from the same guy who's called both climate change and the novel coronavirus a hoax, who had the audacity to claim that thousands of Americans did not die under his watch in Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria, and who never listens to scientists, experts—or even his own military leaders at the Pentagon, which have recognized climate change as a national security threat for years.</p><p>But here's the deal: Running boldly on tackling the climate crisis, running on a Green New Deal, these are policies that can be popular in all 50 states. Democrats should run toward, not away from these fights. The evidence is clear: If we loudly make the case for bold climate action, we will win.</p><p><span></span>John's gray hair is a testament to our 44-year difference in age. Those familiar with each of us may not think we have a lot in common. One of us chaired Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign, and one of us was Bernie Sanders's leading climate surrogate in 2020. But we're both clear: We've never seen our country so eager to elect leaders who will take bold action to stop the climate crisis.</p>
<p>Neither have we ever known a country in such dire need of such bold action. In a moment of historic unemployment, Democrats want to put millions of people back to work now by investing in bold climate action that would create millions of clean energy jobs and begin to repair decades of environmental injustice. That's what the American people want too. By 23 points, voters support investing trillions of dollars in clean energy infrastructure.</p><p>We have paid an inconceivable price for Trump's refusal to heed experts and science in a crisis. But as Americans claw out of unemployment, as folks scrape together the money to properly honor the lives they have lost, we have become unified by our acute fear of living through another crisis of this scale.</p><p>The climate crisis is the crisis we fear. Trump wants to fight about it. That's good. So do we.</p>
<p><em>This story originally appeared in</em> <em><a href="https://www.thenation.com/" target="_blank">The Nation </a></em><em>and is republished here as part of Covering Climate Now, a global journalism collaboration strengthening coverage of the climate story.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- Kamala Harris Becomes Latest 2020 Dem to Support a Green New ... ›
- 5 Key Questions About the Green New Deal - EcoWatch ›
- 81% of Voters Support a Green New Deal, Survey Finds - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less