Click here to read the article on the Observatory.
Bats and vultures may not be widely loved, but their decline has profound negative implications for humans.
ByLeslie Alan Horvitz
All organisms in an ecosystem are interconnected, and any imbalance in this complex relationship can have irreversible consequences for both humans and nonhumans. Numerous examples illustrate how the destruction of one species can lead to unforeseen and devastating impacts on others.
“Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning do matter to human beings. … And it’s not always the charismatic and fuzzy species,” said Eyal Frank, an environmental scientist and economist at the University of Chicago, in a New York Times interview in July 2024. Frank is one of the authors of the study “The Social Costs of Keystone Species Collapse: Evidence from the Decline of Vultures in India,” published in the American Economic Review in October 2024.
Various studies have shown how this lack of natural harmony has affected biodiversity and human health. For instance, the loss of trees in the United States due to the invasive emerald ash borer increased human deaths related to cardiovascular and respiratory illnesses, according to a 2013 article in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine. The study, conducted in 15 U.S. states from 1990 to 2007, examined the effects of this imbalance on biodiversity and human health.
Another example is the extinction of gray wolves in Yellowstone National Park in the 1920s, which led to an explosion in the elk population. The elks, in turn, devoured the vegetation, triggering a trophic cascade or ecosystem collapse. The loss of prey often forces predators to find new food sources, which can have unpredictable environmental consequences. By definition, trophic collapse must affect a minimum of three feeding levels. Trophic cascades frequently occur during periods of climate stress.
“Our results… suggest that increasing environmental stress… as a result of climate change may decouple species interactions,” noted Brian S. Cheng and Edwin D. Grosholz, environmental scientists at the University of California, Davis, in a 2016 article in Ecosphere.
The public pays attention when a species considered “adorable”—like polar bears, dolphins, or pandas—is threatened with extinction. However, the same risks faced by underappreciated species—such as bats and vultures—are often overlooked, underscoring the threat posed by trophic cascades to the world’s ecosystems.
The devastation affecting bat populations in the U.S. and vultures in India has largely escaped notice, as neither species inspires much affection. Instead, they often evoke fear and disgust. However, their decline has dire implications for humanity.
Healthy Bat Populations Support Human Health
“Bats are a fantastic example of a species that we like to keep a distance from, but that are truly impactful in terms of the role they play in ecosystems,” Frank told the Washington Post in September 2024. He was referring to a study he authored and published in Science that same month. The study documented how biodiversity degradation negatively affects human health.
He found that the declining bat population was linked to an 8 percent increase in infant mortality rate in certain U.S. counties. This link is due to the positive impacts of bat’s diets. Every night, a single bat consumes up to 40 percent of its body weight in insects. In agricultural areas, this means that when bats disappear, farmers might use more insecticides on their fields,” explained Rudy Molinek, a fellow at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), in a September 2024 article in Smithsonian Magazine.
According to the study, the decline in the bat population resulted in 1,334 infant deaths between 2006 and 2017. Essentially, the loss of bats, which led to a rise in insect populations, directly impacted human health. In areas with a marked decline in the bat population, U.S. farmers increased their use of insecticides by 31 percent.
White-Nose Syndrome
The principal culprit behind the bat die-off is white-nose syndrome (WNS), a disease caused by a fungus that attacks bats during hibernation. WNS disrupts the hibernation cycle in winter, leading to energy depletion and death. Researchers first identified the disease in 2006 when they observed dying bats in the Northeast U.S. with white fuzz on their noses, ears, and wings.
As of November 2024, white-nose syndrome has been confirmed in 40 states and nine Canadian provinces. The disease has wiped out more than 90 percent of three North American bat species. According to the Center for Biological Diversity, 6.7 million bats have died from WNS since 2006.
According to State of the Bats: North America, a 2023 report by experts from Canada, Mexico, and the U.S., 52 percent of North American bat species are at “risk of severe population decline” through at least 2038 due to various factors, including WNS, habitat loss, climate change, and collisions with wind turbines.
“They need our help to survive,” Winifred Frick, chief scientist at Bat Conservation International, one of the groups that participated in the State of the Bats report, told the Associated Press. “We face a biodiversity crisis globally, and bats play a vital role in healthy ecosystems needed to protect our planet.”
The syndrome’s mortality rate averages around 70 to 90 percent. “In some cases, the mortality rate has been 100 percent, wiping out entire colonies,” stated the Center for Biological Diversity. Researchers are still searching for an effective treatment for it. Polyethylene glycol 8000 has shown promise when applied as a spray to coat fungal spores and prevent their spread. Additionally, a vaccine experimentally used in Wisconsin has reduced infections in affected bat populations.
“Fungal disease killed bats, bats stopped eating enough insects, farmers applied more pesticides to maximize profit and keep food plentiful and cheap, the extra pesticide use led to more babies dying,” Eli Fenichel of Yale University told the New York Times in September. “It is a sobering result.”
Frank told the Guardian that during his research, he ruled out all other causes of infant mortality, including “the opioid epidemic, parental unemployment, genetically modified crops, and even the weather,” Molinek of AAAS reported in Smithsonian Magazine. Frank further stated that the results provide “compelling evidence… that farmers did respond to the decline in insect-eating bats, and that response had an adverse health impact on human infants.”
Vanishing Vultures Cause Human Deaths to Rise in India
Bats aren’t the only species that benefit humans—a phenomenon some scientists call “ecosystem services.” In another study co-authored by Frank, he found that “[a]fter vultures nearly went extinct in India, an extra 500,000 people died” on the subcontinent between 2000 and 2005.
“Vultures are considered nature’s sanitation service because of their important role in removing dead animals that contain bacteria and pathogens from our environment—without them, the disease can spread,” Frank told the BBC.
“Understanding the role vultures play in human health underscores the importance of protecting wildlife, not just the cute and cuddly,” he added. “They all have a job to do in our ecosystems that impacts our lives.”
The first reports of the vulture die-off came from villagers in northern India. Hindus consider cows sacred and do not eat their meat; instead, they leave the carcasses for vultures to strip and consume. The people then harvest the bones to make bone meal and fertilizer.
The villagers’ warnings foreshadowed the catastrophe to come. The white-backed vultures, once abundant, are now on the brink of extinction. As they sicken, their long bald necks droop into the shape of nooses; death soon follows. “By the mid-1990s, the 50 million-strong vulture population had plummeted to near zero because of diclofenac, a cheap non-steroidal painkiller for cattle that is fatal to vultures. Birds that fed on carcasses of livestock treated with the drug suffered from kidney failure and died,” stated a BBC article. According to a New York Times article published in July 2024, vulture populations in India have declined to less than 1 percent of their previous numbers.
The disappearance of vultures has not only resulted in the loss of their critical environmental role but has also had severe consequences for human health and mortality. The “half a million excess human deaths” occurred because rotting livestock carcasses polluted water supplies and contributed to a rise in feral dog populations, which spread waterborne diseases and rabies, according to the New York Times article. “It was ‘a really huge negative sanitation shock,’” said Anant Sudarshan, an economics professor at the University of Warwick in England, who co-authored the study with Frank.
Sudarshan and Frank compared human death rates in Indian districts that once had thriving vulture populations to those with historically low vulture numbers, both before and after the vulture collapse. They examined rabies vaccine sales, feral dog populations, and pathogen levels in the water supplies. The researchers revealed that human death rates increased by more than 4 percent in districts where vultures had previously thrived. The effect was most significant in urban areas with large livestock populations, where carcass dumps were common.
For years, the cause of the vulture deaths remained a mystery. However, in 2004, researchers identified the culprit: diclofenac, a widely used anti-inflammatory drug.
A decade earlier, the steroid’s patent had expired, leading to the production of cheaper generic versions that farmers began using extensively. This unintentionally triggered a mass extinction of vultures.
In their study published by the American Economic Association, Frank and Sudarshan found a direct correlation between the rise in diclofenac sales and the subsequent collapse of vulture populations. The researchers used range maps to determine where vultures had lived and where they had not, allowing them to draw their conclusions. They discovered that “[i]n districts where vultures had lived, human death rates started ticking up in 1994, the year after the price dropped on diclofenac,” noted the New York Times. Human deaths continued rising over the following years in those districts, in stark contrast to areas where vultures were never present.
Alarmed conservationists pushed for a ban on the drug’s veterinary use. Although they succeeded in 2006, the 2023 State of India’s Birds report revealed that at least three vulture species in India have suffered long-term losses of 91 to 98 percent. In ecological terms, they are now functionally extinct.
The decline of both bats and vultures is already disrupting ecosystems and negatively impacting human health. To prevent further devastation, we must take urgent steps to preserve biodiversity and recognize the far-reaching consequences of our actions on other species.
Click here to read the article on the Observatory.
Lack of law enforcement leads to needless suffering for sentient beings.
By Reynard Loki
Farmed animals in the United States have minimal legal protections, and much of the abuse they endure is legal. Unfortunately, the federal Animal Welfare Act—which establishes protections for pets and nonhuman animals used for exhibition (like in zoos) and research—does not apply to farmed animals. Moreover, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has a poorly conceived regulatory framework regarding animal rights and the enforcement of the few protections that exist for animals raised and slaughtered for human consumption.
“The failure of regulatory oversight in the U.S. slaughter industry is actually multifold, negatively affecting workers, animals, and the environment (including the communities that live near slaughterhouses),” wrote Delcianna J. Winders, an associate professor of law and director of the Animal Law and Policy Institute Vermont Law and Graduate School, and Elan Abrell, the vice president of community planning and partnerships at the Phoenix Zones Initiative, in 2021 for the Health and Human Rights Journal.
Most state anti-cruelty laws also exempt farmed animals or allow standard practices that are patently cruel. No federal law in the United States explicitly regulates the treatment of animals on farms, except for the small percentage raised organically.
“Cattle are subject to many unique forms of legal bodily exploitation,” wrote Katalina Hadfield, former editor-in-chief of Ecology Law Quarterly, in 2022. “Perhaps the most well-known form of exploitation is, of course, the slaughter of cattle to produce beef. Another common endeavor is to forcibly impregnate cows and collect their milk for processing and distribution. Cattle are also routinely branded, sometimes on the face, for humans to lay legal claims to their bodies. Cattle are subject to agitation, mutilation, and general discomfort in rodeos across the United States. Nearly all these practices are completely legal—and sometimes encouraged—in U.S. law.”
Even more concerning are the claims—some made by former USDA employees—that animal welfare officials purposely ignore breaches in animal welfare regulations in favor of business interests. In 2021, National Geographic reported that former USDA employees said, “inspectors were discouraged from documenting poor welfare,” revealing “a pattern of federal officials’ failure to act on potential welfare violations.”
While federal protection for farmed animals is largely nonexistent, the few instances of protection that do exist are on the state level. Since the turn of the 21st century, several states have enacted measures to improve the welfare of farmed animals. These laws are often the result of public concern, and in many cases, they are reflected in citizen-initiated ballot measures.
Factory Farms: Cruelty to Animals on a Massive Scale
Cows, pigs, and chickens—the most common animals in factory farms—are intelligent, emotional, and curious. They experience the same basic emotions as we do: joy, happiness, sadness, loneliness, and fear. But despite being sentient beings, they are treated like mere property on farms where they are raised and killed for human consumption.
Factory farms do not provide environments where animals can express natural behaviors, leading to frustration and psychological distress. They are forced to endure various forms of abuse and poor living conditions, including being kept in confined, unsanitary, manure-filled spaces with little or no room to move. This leads to stress, injuries, and infection, and animals are often given antibiotics to stave off the spread of diseases caused by these poor conditions.
To prevent animals from harming one another in crowded and stressful conditions, practices like debeaking, tail docking, and dehorning are performed without anesthesia. On top of this, workers often use rough and violent methods to move animals, causing further pain and injury.
According to a 2011 study published in the Journal of Dairy Science, 52 percent of farmers agreed that disbudding led to prolonged pain, “but pain management was rare” during the procedure.
Along with being selectively bred for productivity, animals are often given hormones and other drugs to promote rapid growth, which can cause health issues like chronic pain and lameness. Recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST), a synthetic bovine growth hormone, may cause “an increased risk of adverse reproductive effects, clinical mastitis, foot and leg problems, injection-site reactions, and udder edema,” writes John B. Gaughan, an associate professor in the School of Agriculture and Food Sustainability at the University of Queensland, in “Metabolic challenge: How does it affect welfare?” a chapter in the 2018 book Advances in Cattle Welfare.
However, many of these animals do not receive adequate medical attention when sick or injured, leading to prolonged suffering. After a life of continual distress, they must also endure stressful and sometimes long-distance transportation, followed by a traumatic death.
Widespread abusive practices in factory farms raise significant ethical concerns and have led to calls for more humane treatment and better welfare standards for farmed animals.
The Challenge of Passing Animal Welfare Laws
Passing legislation to protect the welfare of animals trapped in our food system is not easy. In the United States, it is incredibly challenging due to several key factors.
Economic Interests
The agricultural industry plays a significant role in the U.S. economy. In 2023, agriculture, food, and related industries added about $1.53 trillion to the country’s gross domestic product (GDP), making up 5.6 percent of the total GDP. Of this amount, the output from U.S. farms contributed $203.5 billion, representing around 0.7 percent of the GDP. Large agribusinesses have substantial financial interests in maintaining current practices, as implementing stricter animal welfare laws can increase costs and reduce profitability.
However, as a 2022 Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences policy brief states, “Improving animal welfare can lead to improved profitability for farmers through, for example, higher prices for more in-demand products or higher production from healthier animals. … can imply healthier animals and that veterinary costs and the work of treating sick animals are thereby reduced… [and] can make production smoother, which in itself also has a positive impact on the farm’s financial outcome.”
Lobbying Power
Agribusinesses and industry groups wield considerable influence in politics through lobbying. They spend substantial amounts of money on lobbying efforts to sway lawmakers and resist regulations that could negatively impact their operations.
Between 2019 and 2023, “agribusiness interests spent a huge sum of money—$523 million—lobbying Congress,” said Karen Perry Stillerman, deputy director of the Food and Environment Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists and co-author of a May 2024 report about corporate lobbying on the Food and Farm Bill. “In just the last five years, the agribusiness sector’s annual lobbying expenditures have risen 22 percent, from $145 million in 2019 to $177 million in 2023. And each year, agribusiness spends more on federal lobbying than the oil and gas industry and the defense sector,” stated the report.
Lack of Public Awareness and Pressure on Lawmakers
A 2024 study by the NSF, a nonprofit testing agency that establishes and enforces food sanitation and safety standards, found that many consumers are worried about the treatment of animals in the food industry and where animal products come from. According to the study, 67 percent of U.S. respondents said animal welfare is “very or extremely important in purchasing decisions.” Additionally, 68 percent of consumers value companies that follow animal welfare standards throughout their global supply chains and are transparent about it. These concerns are important since meat consumption in the U.S., by some estimates, is expected to rise through at least 2032.
However, while there is a fair amount of public awareness about the horrific conditions in which factory-farmed animals are raised, it does not necessarily result in public pressure on lawmakers to enact animal welfare laws.
Legal and Regulatory Framework
The USDA oversees most aspects of animal agriculture and is mandated to promote and regulate agricultural production. However, it prioritizes productivity over animal welfare.
“Undercover investigations by animal protection organizations in the early 2000s exposed mistreatment of chickens and turkeys in some of the nation’s largest poultry slaughter establishments,” according to an extensive AWI report released in December 2023, “The Welfare of Birds at Slaughter in the United States.”
The group reported, “The USDA responded by issuing a Notice in September 2005, reminding the poultry industry that birds ‘must be handled in a manner that is consistent with good commercial practices [GCP], which means they should be treated humanely.’ Shortly thereafter, the USDA began issuing records to plants observed violating GCP. However, no additional regulations were written. As a result, compliance with GCP remains effectively voluntary; in most cases, USDA inspection personnel do not take enforcement action for violations, even when intentional abuse is involved.”
Unsurprisingly, the department’s strategic plan for fiscal years 2022-2026 contains no mention of animal welfare.
Political Climate
Animal welfare issues can be polarizing, and achieving consensus on new protections in a politically divided climate can be difficult. Some lawmakers may fear backlash from constituents or industry groups if they support stricter animal welfare laws.
These factors create a complex environment in which economic, cultural, and political considerations make the passage of comprehensive laws to protect farmed animals difficult at the federal and state levels, especially since many do not view them as sentient individuals but merely as property or a means of making a profit.
Sadly, passing new farmed animal protection laws—which have only been done at the state level in the last 45 years—doesn’t necessarily improve the lives of nonhuman animals. Proper enforcement of these laws is necessary to ensure they are afforded the necessary protections. Moreover, how these laws are drafted—including the specific powers given to a state agency and the instructions for that agency to carry out investigations and prosecutions—has an enormous impact on their efficacy.
We must ensure that these hard-won protections are maintained during implementation.
State-Level Farm Animal Protection Laws and Lack of Enforcement
State laws protecting farmed animals can be grouped into three main categories. Firstly, some laws set minimum standards for the care of animals on farms (such as providing food, water, shelter, and veterinary care). These laws usually grant the state authority to investigate complaints made by citizens or other agencies and differ from state cruelty laws, which often offer limited protection for farmed animals.
Secondly, laws prohibit specific conventional industry practices (such as keeping pregnant sows in small crates or housing egg-laying hens in battery cages). Thirdly, laws prohibit the sale of products based on these practices.
A report published in July 2024 by the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI), a nonprofit animal advocacy organization, documents how state-level farmed animal welfare laws are minimally enforced, even though such laws are meant to improve the lives of the 10 billion farmed animals raised and killed in the U.S. each year.
As of February 2023, 44 farm animal protection laws were in place in 18 states. AWI surveyed each state to determine whether and to what degree the provisions of those laws and regulations were being enforced.
To conduct this research, AWI submitted public records requests for documents related to all enforcement activities between September 2019 and February 2023. In response, AWI received records indicating some level of enforcement for only 12 of the laws in 10 states.
Similar to what AWI documented in its 2020 report—the first-ever comprehensive analysis of the enforcement of farmed animal protections by states—the 2024 report also showed that minimum animal care standards overall had the most evidence of consistent enforcement. Ohio, New Jersey, and Indiana supplied the most extensive evidence of enforcement.
In Ohio, for instance, the state’s agriculture department investigates complaints and enforces the rules, including levying fines or seeking injunctions through the court. State records show that during the survey period, the department conducted more than 100 investigations—the most of any state—and fined multiple producers, including one penalty totaling $15,000.
Lack of Enforcement of Laws
Several states have established animal protection laws but have yet to enforce them actively. For example, at the legislature’s direction, the Kentucky Department of Agriculture adopted farmed animal care standards in 2014 (which included a prohibition on veal calf crates after 2018). Yet, the department provided AWI with no enforcement records.
In Nevada, the legislature passed a law in 2021 to “phase out battery cages and the in-state sale of eggs from caged hens.” At the time of the survey, eggs produced or sold in the state must have come from hens afforded at least one square foot of space each (with the full cage-free requirement effective January 2024), a minor yet remarkable and welcome achievement. Animal activists are right to scoff at such a paltry improvement in the lives of imprisoned hens. But seen against the long arc of nonhuman rights, it demonstrates a willingness by lawmakers—and presumably the voters they represent—to move toward more space, and thus, more personal freedom, for hens.
Yet a records officer from the Nevada Department of Agriculture informed AWI that—contrary to a legislative directive—the department leaves it up to retailers to ensure compliance. This approach to enforcement is certainly not the way to ensure that the law is being followed.
In Massachusetts, there is a ban on the sale of certain animal products where they are confined in a way that “prevent [them] from lying down, standing up, fully extending [their] limbs, or turning around freely.” The department responsible for compliance with these requirements doesn’t need to conduct routine assessments but is only required to ensure “complaint-based enforcement,” according to the AWI report.
In Oregon, there is a requirement to ensure cage-free housing for hens regardless of whether the eggs are procured from within the state or outside, but there is minimal enforcement of the compliance of these housing standards. Equally problematic is Washington’s enforcement mechanism for its battery-cage egg sales ban, which only requires distributors to attest that they understand compliance is required without needing proof.
Out of the 30 state laws or regulations banning a specific industry practice, AWI received enforcement records for only two: Ohio’s tail docking ban and Colorado’s hen housing standards. One possible reason for this lack of enforcement is that most laws do not have any “mechanism” to check compliance proactively.
“[S]ince AWI’s [2020] survey, new farmed animal protection laws and regulations have taken effect in six states, but there has not been a dramatic increase in the overall enforcement of such laws,” said Adrienne Craig, senior policy associate and staff attorney for AWI’s farmed animal program, in the July 2024 report prepared by her.
The most significant changes included sales bans in states like California and Massachusetts on animal products derived from animals confined in spaces that did not meet minimum size requirements. However, these laws have faced lengthy legal challenges, delaying implementation and enforcement. It should also be noted that while they may avoid the torture of extreme confinement, these animals will nevertheless continue to endure physical and emotional pain and suffering.
“Legislation establishing any standards for the care of animals or related to the sale of specific products must include a clear enforcement mechanism that requires the appropriate state agency to proactively ensure compliance, as well as the obligation to investigate complaints and follow up on violations,” said Craig.
Important Factors to Ensure More Ethical Food Practices
Lawmakers must consider many elements when drafting the most effective farmed animal protection laws.
Legislation establishing minimum standards for livestock care must include language clearly providing a mechanism for complaints and an obligation for the appropriate state agency to investigate and follow up. Severe violations—such as failure to seek veterinary care for injuries or causing an animal to become emaciated—need to be prosecuted and not merely left to the agency’s discretion.
The agency responsible should be required to periodically review minimum care standards to ensure they reflect the latest animal welfare science.
For sale bans, legislative bodies should direct a single responsible agency to require producers and distributors to prove compliance through on-farm inspections, which a competent third-party certifier can perform.
Fines need to be established to penalize noncompliance, and the penalties must be high enough to discourage violations rather than allow producers and retailers to treat them merely as the cost of doing business.
“We can and must reduce the vast amount of avoidable suffering that animals raised for consumption endure,” said Craig. “Lawmakers, as representatives of the people who elect them, should do what they can to ensure their communities’ ethical and moral standards are reflected in the laws and in their robust enforcement.”
Click here to read the article on the Observatory.
We must ensure ecocentric standards to reverse environmental and social injustices.
By Esther Afolaranmi, Carter Dillard, Beatrix Homler and Mwesigye Robert
We have laws to ensure children are born into a safe, sustainable, and unpolluted environment. These laws are also meant to empower future generations and guarantee birth equity. But far from ensuring that these rights are upheld, we disfranchise children at birth because they do not have a legal say in the actions of adults that impact their future.
Our ill-advised desire to prioritize economic growth over children’s futures has led to the climate crisis. It has also led to children being born into unequal conditions where they do not have equal access to welfare resources. This has resulted in the impacts of environmental degradation being felt unequally among different socioeconomic groups. Poor people, Indigenous groups, and people of color are, by and large, impacted more by the degraded environment than the wealthy and white segment of the population. This is the tragic legacy of environmental racism, which has been referred to as “the new Jim Crow.”
Those most affected by these injustices often have little or no say in shaping policies and laws, and their children eventually inherit this unequal system. In a capitalist, profit-driven economy, it is unsurprising that the corporate sector, driven by financial concerns above all else, is the biggest culprit in perpetuating these wrongs—particularly the extractive industries and industrial agriculture.
The Misinformed Power Grab
Most leaders—and the biggest beneficiaries of an unequal society—never came close to protecting children from the harm caused by the development model favored by the rich world. Instead, poor children grow up in a world to face the repercussions of a power grab by wealthy, primarily white, families.
The first misstep of dissociating the connection between human rights and environmental sustainability was taken in 1948 when the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was signed, establishing fundamental rights for all people.
Twenty years later, in 1968, the United Nations held a conference in Tehran where some groups raised concerns about the impact of population growth (and, by extension, economic growth) on human rights. Despite these efforts, the concerns were never resolved, and the relevant changes were never incorporated into the UDHR.
Fixing the Problem: Laws, Norms, and Reparations
The UN’s ill-informed, misguided policy decision has led to a socioeconomic system built on the disenfranchisement of children at the time of their birth. There is an urgent requirement to rectify this situation and secure their welfare.
Firstly, reparations are needed. The wealth made through this process of disenfranchisement must be used to secure the future of newborn children who are entering the world. Those wealthy individuals and corporations that have benefited most from this disenfranchisement (and may have promoted ignorance by glossing over the actual impacts of economic growth) should be held especially responsible.
Secondly, we must establish laws and norms that ensure that the rights and welfare of unborn children are accounted for in the democratic process and that human beings are not merely seen as a means to sustain and grow economies. We must shape a future where children are not born simply to become consumers or workers but as fully participatory citizens with agency over their lives, with the ability to choose and thrive instead of merely surviving.
While Effective Altruism and other movements based on financial investments are often viewed by many nonprofits as effective ways to resolve these issues, reparations are the most effective and immediate way to fix problems facing us today if we want to restore the natural balance. If we skip this crucial step, it would be the equivalent of building a house with no foundation.
The Sustainability Scam
Sustainability has become a buzzword among environmentalists, CEOs, and politicians. Leaders often present themselves as guardians of a better future, bragging about eco-friendly projects and sustainable methods. However, a closer look exposes a darker aspect to these assertions. The rhetoric and reality frequently diverge significantly, with racial disparities, self-interest, and uneven growth undermining various projects’ ostensible benefits.
Nonprofits working toward social, economic, and environmental changes must also include family planning in their goals. They must first help ensure the shared, inclusive equity of children born into the world. That means giving all newly born human beings an equal capacity to self-determine the social and ecological influences that others have over them.
In his 2018 book Winners Take All, The Elite Charade of Changing the World, Anand Giridharadas examines how the global elite’s efforts to “change the world” are only an attempt to retain the status quo. He argues that their actions to try and resolve problems are a bid to hide their role in creating the problems in the first place. Publishers Weekly called the book a “damning portrait of contemporary American philanthropy.”
But Giridharadas—and publications like the New York Times—have missed the biggest charade—the one mainly driving the suffering and death unfolding as temperatures increase. This “sustainability scam” has at least two standards for activist campaigns that claim to be sustainable, green, humane, democratic, eco-friendly, etc. There is one standard for wealthy investors (and their children), who often fund organizations that promote these terms, hoping that their work might have an impact in furthering them, and a different standard based on birth equity.
These standards are artificial, arbitrary, and designed to allow a particular form of economic growth that benefits some—mainly the white population—at a deadly cost to others. This first standard—anthropocentric and adopted in 1968 by the UN agencies bowing to wealthy families—does not require birth equity. It functions on unsustainable welfare as the primary currency or value.
This first standard allows significant deviation from the ecosocial baselines and ecocentric standards that would have prevented the climate crisis. These real standards can be measured along at least eight metrics like restorative levels of greenhouse gas emissions and inclusive representative ratios that ensure a healthy, functional democracy. Deviation from these standards—based on self-determination or freedom and equitable share in democracy—has led to the climate crisis that is killing millions.
Funders in the polluter nations facing significant climate liability fund various institutions—media, nonprofits, universities, agencies, think tanks, and celebrities—to spread disinformation to support the first standard. This allows wealthy families to treat inherited wealth and other privileges as something outside the realm of the democratic process, which they use to strengthen their positionality and growth to systematically disenfranchise the average voter. We are now at a place where they can use the wealth they made through the scam to attack the democratic process and try to step outside of it.
An effort is underway at the United Nations that requires assessments of climate damages. This includes the need to 1) ensure that ecocentric standards are adopted to account for the actual harm being done by the crisis and 2) to treat these standards and the recovery of climate reparations as the first and overriding human rights, a right that preempts the government’s authority to assign wealth contrary to it, and allows citizens to engage in preemptive acts of self-defense to protect themselves and their children.
Inequitable Growth Policies
As a fundamental right, people who are made vulnerable by the actions of others—like fenceline communities put in harm’s way by petrochemical plants being built in their backyards—are owed compensation. As millions die in a climate crisis resulting from inequitable growth policies undoing most mitigation efforts, questions arise about how that happened and who should be held accountable.
We can see the imbalance in how the climate crisis disproportionately impacts those who are least responsible for causing it. In 2022, Seth Borenstein and Drew Costley of the Associated Press reported that “the data shows that the top carbon emitter over time, the United States, has caused more than $1.9 trillion in climate damage to other countries from 1990 to 2014, including $310 billion in damage to Brazil, $257 billion in damage to India, $124 billion to Indonesia, $104 billion to Venezuela and $74 billion to Nigeria. But at the same time, the United States’ carbon pollution has benefited the U.S. by more than $183 billion, while Canada, Germany, and Russia have profited even more from American emissions.”
This problem can no longer be ignored if we want to secure our children’s future. We must work toward resolving the social and economic disparities, increasing access to welfare measures, and ensuring better resources for pregnant women and families.
Ensuring Child Rights
There is a minimum threshold of well-being for birthing a child, which is necessary for self-determination. We must take drastic measures to ensure all children have the resources to become self-determining individuals. This could involve seizing resources from well-defended enclaves of wealth. By doing so, potential mothers might be incentivized to plan for their children’s future, knowing these resources would be available.
Some will argue that reduced economic growth, for example, is too high a cost to pay for ensuring birth equity and access to the same welfare opportunities for all children, especially those from BIPOC communities. However, these minimum thresholds are essential in forming a just and equitable society. People who argue against these basic standards threaten who we aspire to be as a society. They are more interested in exploiting humans and the environment for their gains, rather than investing in a better future. They threaten our freedom.
It’s physically impossible to have a legally obligating “we” that precedes all legitimate national constitutions without measurable birth equity. As the work done by the United Nations shows, no one gets to use authority and state violence to benefit at a cost to others without incurring significant risk. It is important to see beyond the lies perpetuated between 1948 and 1968 to make us think that national sovereignty is magically inherent. It has to be derived from the measurable sovereignty or self-determination of its subjects.
The only way to ensure share equity is to entitle would-be parents to bring children into the world only after a certain threshold of planned conditions, measurable on the eight metrics, have been achieved. The wealth accumulated by exploiting nature, which led to the climate crisis, must be used to ensure these conditions.
The United States prides itself on being a free nation but uses the concept of freedom that starts by exploiting the most vulnerable. There is no minimum threshold of well-being for future children and animals, as they are seen as a means to growing economies rather than individuals with rights who form integral parts of society.
Converting democracies into unsustainable growth economies that enrich a few by diluting everyone else’s equal and influential equity shares in our political system is a subtle form of oppression. It leads to millions dying as the growth triggers catastrophic heat waves. This eventually results in justified resistance movements to protest against the scam, where those at the top of the economic pyramid benefitted from a society that promised an inclusive democracy, which is instead based on shared inequity.
“While there is no ‘optimal’ human population, the evidence suggests that a sustainable global population of 3 billion is an optimistic number given that we long ago entered a continuously intensifying state of ecological overshoot, accumulating ever more massive amounts of ecological debt that must be paid down if we are to avoid the ongoing (and ever-worsening) climate catastrophe, ecological destruction, and the resulting human misery,” Dr. Christopher K. Tucker, chairman of the American Geographical Society, said in an October 2024 email.
“Adding 80 million additional people to the planet each year—the equivalent of 10 New York Cities or an additional Germany each year—is not a recipe for addressing this polycrisis,” he said. “Fortunately, simply investing (heavily) in empowering strategies focused on women and girls worldwide can hasten the already inevitable demographic transition that would relieve the unrelenting pressure we have foisted on our planet—and help us meet our commitments to the next generation under the UN’s 1959 Declaration of the Rights of the Child.”
The wealthy need to pay the cost of creating an unequal system that benefits them instead of ensuring equal and inclusive participation by all citizens in that system. They profit from treating children as part of a labor force to build and grow economies, instead of securing their rights as part of human rights and the democratic process.
Many involved in prioritizing birth equity have seen a pattern in how they react to it: they do not offer counterarguments to the idea that restoring nature through ecosocial birth equity must be the first and overriding human right but resort to tactics to evade the issue.
These people share a common trait: They attempt to evade being held responsible for the deadly costs and lush benefits of their birth, developmental, and emancipatory positionality. Their phrasing varies from “I’m just trying to save these specific animals” to “I’m just trying to focus on this specific area of research.” That kind of siloed myopia ultimately destroys biodiversity and causes irreversible environmental damage.
True Sustainability Means Having Children in a Very Different Way
These deceptive tactics undermine the promise of sustainability, allowing leaders to project a false image of environmental stewardship while continuing harmful practices. To achieve genuine sustainability, we must demand transparency, hold organizations accountable, and ensure that the benefits of sustainable development are distributed equitably. Addressing these systemic issues is the only way toward a sustainable and just future.
Many willing to benefit at a deadly cost to others want to treat the birth of children as unrelated to their lives. It is not. It is the basis of all things: a commitment to our most fundamental aspirations. Do we care about each other or exploit each other? While economics has dominated the social sciences because humans predictably try to maximize their welfare, it is also clear that many people choose criteria for truth and value that reaffirm their birth and developmental positionality.
That’s a dangerous form of self-deception, but understanding its existence allows us to move beyond economics, beyond capitalism versus socialism, and toward unifying constitutionality. We can’t change lives for the better if disproportionately influential people have the power to define what good is. Recognizing this fact is essential to hold those who evade our obligations to birth equity accountable—so that we all can work together to know what’s right and work toward taking remedial steps to prevent further environmental damage.
How could you know how much welfare you deserve if you are not involved in making the rules determining welfare? We can’t create economic demand by violating neonatal rights. We can’t ensure economic growth by preventing all citizens from being born and raised in town halls and participating in the democratic process. Using specific ecosocial thresholds to reform birth and development rights ensures an equal and influential role in rulemaking, thus limiting the influence others have over you to live in relative self-determination. Given the exponential difference between the wealth of Black and white children, massive reforms are necessary to achieve equity.
Countries cannot legitimately undercut the sovereignty of their subjects by ignoring children’s birth and development entitlements, using those children instead as economic inputs to create ecologically deadly growth. Nations and many powerful interests within them have, while responding to the “baby bust” of falling fertility rates, openly admitted to doing this. Part of creating deadly growth is to offer tax cuts to women for having children.
In the book Walden by Henry David Thoreau, we learn that a basket weaver could not expect to succeed in the “free” markets created by those colonizing his lands. But even Thoreau missed the fundamental value of nature in constituting the creation of power relations toward equity and freedom. Laws that protect the beneficiaries of any political system only derive their legitimacy by including and empowering future generations—in a measurable way—rather than exploiting them.
Esther Afolaranmi is an attorney, humanitarian, researcher, and writer. She is co-executive director of the Fair Start Movement and founder and executive of Golden Love and Hands of Hope Foundation, a registered NGO in Nigeria that targets the needs of the vulnerable and underprivileged. She is a contributor to the Observatory.
Carter Dillard is the policy adviser for the Fair Start Movement. He previously served as an Honors Program attorney at the U.S. Department of Justice and with a national security law agency before developing a comprehensive account of reforming family planning for the Yale Human Rights and Development Law Journal. He is a contributor to the Observatory.
Mwesigye Robert is the founder of Rejoice Africa Foundation. He is focused on human and nonhuman climate mitigation and adaptation strategies and is passionate about investing in women and children to save future generations from the climate crisis. He is a contributor to the Observatory.
Click here to read the article on the Observatory.
Photo Credit: Fibonacci Blue (Minnesota, USA) via Wikimedia Commons
The stakes for our collective future could not be higher, yet many decision-makers are doubling down on destructive policies.
By Laurel Sutherlin
All eyes should be on the salsa dancing capital of the world, Cali, Colombia, where representatives of 190 nations are joined by a broad swath of global civil society and international Indigenous delegations to participate in the United Nations Biodiversity Summit (aka COP16).
I’ve been struck that many people (even among those who generally track the larger annual climate COP process) are not familiar with the biannual biodiversity COP (conference of parties). This is a shame because the stakes for our collective future could not be higher: The Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) is the most crucial official treaty among the world’s nations to halt the extinction crisis. Its implementation—COP16’s primary goal—is critical to striking a sustainable balance between human civilization and the natural world.
We know by now that we are in serious trouble: More than one million species face imminent extinction, entire ecosystems are unraveling, and the very fabric of Earth’s life support systems that we all depend on—for literally everything—is convulsing on the brink of collapse under an onslaught of reckless resource exploitation, toxic pollution, and corporate greed. We also know that decision-makers at the highest levels of government and business not only have their heads in the sand but are doubling down on the kinds of short-sighted, profit-at-all-costs Wild West capitalism that got us in this mess in the first place.
This is why it was such a big deal when, in 2022, at the conclusion of COP15 in Montreal, 196 nations adopted the historic GBF, an ambitious pact to halt the extinction crisis and begin to reverse the destruction of nature by 2030. Of course, the GBF is imperfect and insufficient. However, given the current state of world affairs, it firmly qualifies as better than nothing and even a good start—mainly because it is the best we’ve got going. Now, countries are meant to present their detailed plans in Cali to implement and pay for this noble commitment.
The theme of this year’s biodiversity COP is ‘Peace with Nature,’ and Colombia has embraced its role as host to the world with gusto. The streets of Cali have been painted an exuberant rainbow of colorful birds, prowling jaguars, and other myriad representations of the richness of life. The president of Colombia, Gustavo Petro, gave a fiery opening speech starkly outlining the predicament we face, holding no punches about the role of the rich world in creating this escalating catastrophe and the responsibility wealthy countries bear in supporting the developing world in solving it. The atmosphere surrounding COP16 presents a microcosm of our moment in history, with a chaotic chorus of international voices gathered to negotiate, cajole, and sometimes battle it out over how far and how fast we can agree to push the envelope on change.
Besides the heads of state shuttling around in black SUV motorcades, thousands of other stakeholders are flooding the city this week as well, both inside the formal UN Blue Zone on the outskirts of the city, where you need a delegate badge to enter, and outside, in the publicly accessible Green Zone along Cali’s main downtown riverfront. Alongside my organization, Rainforest Action Network (RAN), are hundreds of our non-governmental organizations from around the world, as well as dozens of Indigenous delegations and lots of unaffiliated activists of all stripes. There is hope and solidarity in the air, and it is undeniably exciting and inspiring to stand shoulder to shoulder with so many passionate advocates gathered to speak truth to power to achieve a better outcome for future generations.
And, ominously, there are the legions of businesspeople in suits and ties. Two years ago in Montreal, everyone in the environmental and human rights realm was commenting on the unprecedented abundance of bankers and corporate lobbyists, and it appears that this year, that trend has continued its sharp trajectory upward. On the one hand, the masters of finance seem to have realized that the real solutions we are seeking must necessarily involve structural changes to business as usual that would undoubtedly impact their bottom line and, on the other hand, that there may be great profit opportunities in some of the corporate-driven ‘solutions’ being proposed.
The thing is, we largely know what must be done to avoid the most catastrophic outcomes on the horizon. It’s just that nobody with real power sees any short-term gain from doing these things. Governments must pass finance regulations to stop the funneling of hundreds of billions of dollars into expanding nature-destroying sectors like soy, beef, and palm oil ever deeper into primary tropical forests. Wealthy nations must act to relieve the unsustainable debt and trade agreements that limit conservation options for so many developing countries.
We must shift the foundational dialogue from viewing nature through a transactional lens to embracing a holistic understanding of biodiversity. This includes listening to and incorporating the knowledge of traditional and Indigenous communities into our policies and economic models. We must transform the current landscape of corporate impunity into one where accountability prevails.
Sadly, there are already those dubbing this the ‘COP of false solutions’ as industry twists itself in knots to contrive increasingly Orwellian schemes that sound good on the surface but deftly avoid real change to the lucrative system from which they have grown fat. Along with an alphabet soup of innocuous sounding, corporate-driven initiatives like the TNFD (Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosure) is the newly ubiquitous concept of biodiversity credits, a dark mutation of the carbon credits debacle, which is every bit as ludicrous as it sounds.
Left to their own devices, the financial sector’s solution to the crisis resulting from the commodification of nature is to find new ways to commodify nature. This is why a big part of our mission here is to call BS, push back against these hare-brained schemes before they take root, and leverage whatever influence we have to bring frontline demands to the table.
Longtime observers of this decades-deep process know better than to expect an immediate, transformative breakthrough here in Cali. But the fact is, change is coming, and on some level, everyone knows it. History is full of flipped scripts, unexpected shifts, and dramatic realignments of power. There is simply no way the current economic system can persist indefinitely on a finite planet. And when the big shifts inevitably do come, we, and life on earth, will be far better off if we have built the infrastructure of a new direction forward.
The crippling grip of our current dominant economic model can feel pretty disempowering and limit our imaginations of what is possible. So it’s our job to keep our eyes on the prize, dream big, and demand the real solutions that science and morality dictate, not just the ones corporations and politicians will tolerate.
###
Laurel Sutherlin is the senior communications strategist for Rainforest Action Network and a contributor to the Observatory. He is a lifelong environmental and human rights campaigner, naturalist, and outdoor educator passionate about birds and wild places. Follow him on Twitter @laurelsutherlin.
This article was produced by Earth | Food | Life, a project of the Independent Media Institute.
Top image: Colombian President Gustavo Petro announces the city of Cali as the host for UN Biodiversity COP16 on February 20, 2024. (Photo credit: República de Colombia/Wikimedia Commons)
The nascent industry of next-gen materials is set to dethrone unsustainable animal-based materials.
By Elaine Siu
Next-generation (“next-gen”) materials are innovative alternatives to traditional petrochemical and animal-based materials like leather, silk, down, fur, wool, and exotic skins. They aim to replace animal-based materials and significantly reduce environmental impacts and animal welfare concerns.
Next-gen materials replicate the performance of their animal-based counterparts by using biomimicry approaches while being more sustainable.
The Six Main Input Categories of Next-Gen Materials
The rise of innovation companies has led to several types of next-gen material being available in the market. These high-performance materials tend to vary from one another. For instance, mushroom leather produced by one company will differ from others; each innovator follows their own specialized approach.
To simplify the diverse landscape of formulation and processing approaches for next-gen materials, MII categorizes next-gen innovation into six “main input” categories:
Plant-derived: Next-gen materials derived from plant matter, including fungi (fruiting body) and algae inputs.
Mycelium: Materials utilizing the root-like structure of fungal species called mycelium. It is distinguished from the plant-derived category by its rich activity in next-gen innovation.
Cultivated animal cells: Materials grown from animal cell constructs in laboratory tissue engineering approaches.
Microbe-derived: Materials produced through cellular engineering approaches like cell culture or fermentation processes to create proteins and biopolymers.
Recycled material: Materials utilizing recycled plastic or textile feedstock as the primary input.
Blend: Materials made by combining components not well captured by any of the above categories.
State of the Industry
The fourth State of the Industry report by the Material Innovation Initiative (MII), where I serve as an adviser, highlights the importance of next-gen materials in transitioning away from unsustainable practices in material production.
The report provides insights into the progress made by the next-gen industry in 2023. It further details the key stakeholders and the challenges posed by the industry while spotlighting the “rising stars.”
Companies in the Next-Gen Materials Industry
As of the start of 2024, there are 144 “innovators,” or companies developing next-gen materials. The majority (92 companies) worked on biomimicry of animal leather and exotic skins. Twenty-four worked on biomimicry of silk, 16 on wool, 14 on down, and eight on fur.
Some companies work on more than one material. The U.S. had the most innovators at 44; other countries had between one and 13, according to the MII report. The vast majority of innovators’ main focus is next-gen materials. Also, some larger corporations have a next-gen material product as part of their diverse offerings. For example, Volvo has developed its next-gen leather, Nordico (with a blend input). The company aims to use this material in 25 percent of its new cars by 2025, comprising “recycled and bio-based content.”
More than half of all innovators used a plant-derived source as their primary input for their material, according to the MII report. The remaining half was divided between microbe-derived, mycelium, recycled materials, and blends, with cultivated animal cells forming the smallest input category at around 4 percent.
The feedstock, inputs, and technologies used to create a material affect not only the look, feel, and properties of the finished product but also—crucially in this industry of innovation—the time and cost it will take to reach commercial manufacturing scale.
Many innovators chose to stay in stealth mode until they were ready to launch. No new companies were created in 2023, but 29 that existed previously in stealth mode publicly disclosed their activities.
Due to their high market value, silk, fur, and exotic skins may appeal to early-stage innovators. Unlike commodity markets, these high-value product targets could lead to faster price parity. For instance, while polyester yarn costs around $1/kg, raw silk averages around $55/kg. These underserved product categories lack competition, making them attractive to innovators and investors seeking entry into the next-gen materials industry.
Investment in Next-Gen Materials
Investors play an essential role in the next-generation materials industry by funding research, development, and growth.
In 2021, there was an unprecedented spike in capital invested in next-gen materials companies, followed by a sharp decrease in 2022. An upward momentum returned in 2023, with just more than $500 million raised in 36 publicly disclosed deals.
Despite a global decline in venture capital funding and deal count in 2023, funding for next-gen materials companies increased. The industry experienced a 10 percent rise in investment funding, indicating higher investments than the general market. This is a positive sign for such a nascent industry.
The total investment figure of more than $500 million excludes significant investments made internally by companies in developing next-gen materials. Such internal investments are important as they reflect the expertise and resources of the companies. Gucciʼs capital investment in their Demetra next-gen leather exemplifies this trend, leveraging the companyʼs reputation, expertise in high-quality leather, and available resources to drive innovation in the next-gen materials industry.
Industry Brands’ Involvement in the Next-Gen Materials Market
Industry brands are established companies in fashion, automotive, and home goods that are the biggest buyers and users of materials. Although consumer preference has driven brands in these industries toward more sustainable practices over the years, material innovators seldom have a direct relationship with consumers. The success of transitioning from animal-based materials to next-gen materials largely depends on the ability of innovators and industry brands to work together.
Industry brands can play vital roles in the next-gen material innovation ecosystem, including funding internal and external initiatives, switching to next-gen materials as their raw materials, and collaborating with startups to create new products. These actions help accelerate commercialization and scale-up production of next-gen materials to replace conventional products.
Top-tier industry brands like Nike, IKEA, and Volvo are driving demand for next-gen materials due to pressure from consumers and regulations to improve sustainability and reduce the environmental impact of their products. Regulations such as the EUʼs corporate sustainability due diligence directive, Franceʼs AGEC law, and the New York Fashion Act replace voluntary supervisory systems with mandatory targets and consequences for non-compliance. This regulatory landscape and consumer sentiment are driving the shift toward next-gen materials in various industries.
Next-Gen Materials and the ‘Hype Cycle’ of Innovation
The Gartner Hype Cycle is a graphical representation of the stages in the life cycle of a technology. It depicts the typical progression of innovation from “overenthusiasm” toward a period of “disillusionment” and then to “eventual productivity.”
High expectations and low maturity lead to the “Trough of Disillusionment,” where interest wanes as experiments and implementations fail to deliver. However, investments may continue if the product is improved to satisfy early adopters.
The Hype Cycle consists of five key phases that describe the life cycle of new technologies and the challenges and opportunities they may encounter along the way:
Innovation Trigger: Potential technological breakthroughs that spark initial interest but often have no usable products and unproven commercial viability.
Peak of Inflated Expectations: This is characterized by early success stories, which generate hype, but failures also occur.
Trough of Disillusionment: This period is characterized by declining interest as experiments fail, leading to shakeouts or failures among technology producers.
Slope of Enlightenment: This occurs when there is an understanding of the technology’s increasing benefits, with second- and third-generation products emerging.
Plateau of Productivity: This is a function of mainstream adoption, which begins with clearly defined criteria for assessing provider viability and broader market applicability.
The innovation trigger for next-gen materials began in 2018 when many startups received their first round of venture capital funding. The peak of inflated expectations began around 2020, with next-gen materials becoming a trend in business, industry, and fashion publications. Companies capitalized on this by using buzzwords like “next-gen materials” and “apple/cactus/mushroom leather.” Investment spiked in 2021, reaching $980 million, a significant increase from previous years.
After 2022, the industry has undoubtedly been in the trough of disillusionment signaled by a sharp decline in investment, exacerbated by the pandemic’s unprecedented disruption of various facets of business, from supply chains to funding availability. Early success stories were repeated, and the market soon became impatient with the lack of scaled production and availability of innovative materials. There was negative press as a result, and the innovation was discredited for not living up to the early, overinflated expectations of being the “perfectly sustainable” solution to the grand challenges faced by the fashion industry.
However, despite these challenges, innovation has continued, with companies working to improve products based on feedback, addressing scaling challenges, and exploring new markets.
The length of the trough of disillusionment is one of the most variable parts of the hype cycle. And yet, the industry’s progress to the next phase may be closer than expected. At the end of 2023, there was an upward trend in investments in the next-gen materials industry. This reflects progress with the hope that next-gen materials continue to be more widely adopted by leading brands to ensure a more sustainable future.
This article was produced by Earth | Food | Life, a project of the Independent Media Institute. Claudia Erixon, communications and development assistant at Material Innovation Initiative, provided research.
Elaine Siu is an adviser at Material Innovation Initiative (MII), where she previously served as the chief innovation officer. She has also served as the managing director of Good Food Institute APAC and is the author of the book Your Next 40,000 Hours. Siu advises startups, corporations, and investors on strategies and industry insights, particularly on harnessing the power of technology and market forces to shift the world away from industrial animal agriculture. She is a contributor to the Observatory.
Click here to read the article on the Observatory.
Regulatory loopholes allow more than 30 million pounds of a cancer-causing pesticide to be sprayed on U.S. crops.
By Caroline Cox
California regulators were stunned by their air monitor results in April 1990. Concentrations of a cancer-causing pesticide at schools in Merced County were so high that regulators immediately stopped any use of that pesticide in California. It’s a chemical with an unwieldy name, 1,3-dichloropropene, that you may have never heard about. But there are many reasons why you should be concerned about its use.
The pesticide, also referred to as 1,3-D, is still a problem three decades after I first wrote about it in 1992, when the detection of high levels of 1,3-D in the air of a junior high school led to serious concerns.
The use of 1,3-D in California was suspended from 1990 to 1995 but continued in the rest of the country. Since then, its use has come back with a vengeance. About 34 million pounds are used annually in the United States; about one-third is used in California. The use of 1,3-D is concentrated in the southeastern U.S., central California, and the potato-growing areas of Washington and Idaho. It is mainly used to kill nematodes, symphylans, and wireworms and control some plant diseases.
In California, the heaviest use of 1,3-D is for preparing fields to grow almonds, strawberries, sweet potatoes, grapes, and carrots. Nationally, potatoes accounted for about half of all 1,3-D used between 2014 and 2018, according to a 2020 United States Environmental Protection Agency report.
1,3-D is manufactured by just one company in the U.S., Dow Chemical, and is often sold under the brand name Telone.
Regulatory Loophole
The story of how and why regulators have allowed 1,3-D’s use to continue and even increase is a complicated one that involves politics, economics, and corporate power. For example, in 2002, California opened a regulatory loophole that allowed 1,3-D use to increase, leading to “unfettered 1,3-D access as its use spread to populated areas near schools, homes and businesses,” wrote Bernice Yeung, Kendall Taggart, and Andy Donohue in 2014 in Reveal.
“The loophole also expanded a key market for Dow, allowing it to sell millions more pounds of chemicals across a state that provides the U.S. with nearly half of all its fruits, vegetables, and nuts,” the article in Reveal added. Yet in 2016, limits on 1,3-D use in California increased again.
In 2022, the Office of the Inspector General at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that “EPA did not adhere to standard operating procedures and requirements for the 1,3-Dichloropropene, or 1,3-D, pesticide cancer-assessment process, which undermines public confidence in and the transparency of the Agency’s scientific approaches to prevent unreasonable impacts on human health.”
In other words, the agency did not do its job. This is in stark contrast to the European Union, where 1,3-D use is not approved.
Elaborating on the extensive use of the pesticide, the inspector general also stated that “1,3-D is one of the top three soil fumigants used in the United States.”
1,3-D Causes Air Pollution
1,3-D typically is applied as a liquid that is injected into the soil. It quickly becomes a gas, moves through the soil, and escapes into the atmosphere.
California is the only state that regularly monitors 1,3-D in the air around agricultural communities, but the few results that have been obtained are extremely concerning. Weekly air monitoring data that began to be recorded in 2011 and has continued as of May 2024 is available from four towns (Oxnard, Santa Maria, Shafter, and Watsonville) where the air monitors are located at schools.
In 2022, about one-third of the samples collected from these air monitors contained 1,3-D. Over the entire sampling period, the average 1,3-D concentration at the four schools was between .09 and .46 ppb. According to my calculations, this is double the safety level set by California’s scientists at the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) at the least contaminated school site and 10 times the safety level at the most contaminated school site.
1,3-D is classified as a hazardous air pollutant under the Clean Air Act and is also designated a toxic air contaminant in California. Regulators in California who modeled high detections of 1,3-D between 2017 and 2020 have found that 1,3-D can drift for more than 3 miles from where it is applied.
Clear Evidence of Significant Health Hazards of 1,3-D
In a 2021 review, California’s OEHHA summarized laboratory studies conducted on rats and mice in the 1980s and 1990s, showing that exposure to 1,3-D caused tumors or cancer in multiple organs: lungs, tear glands, bladder, and breasts.
Asthma and Other Breathing Problems
Regulatory agencies recognize that 1,3-D irritates the lungs. The European Chemicals Agency states that 1,3-D is “harmful if inhaled” and “may cause respiratory irritation.”
The HHS concludes that the “[i]nhalation of dichloropropenes may cause respiratory effects such as irritation, chest pain, and cough.” California’s Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) states, “Acute or short-term inhalation exposure to high concentrations of 1,3-D results in upper respiratory symptoms in humans, including chest tightness, irritated and watery eyes, dizziness and runny nose.” Researchers at the University of California, Merced, found that tiny increases in the amounts of 1,3-D in the air (0.01 parts per billion, or ppb) increased the odds of emergency room visits for asthma from 2005 to 2011.
Genetic Damage
As with cancer, evidence that 1,3-D can cause genetic damage has been available for decades. In 1987, WHO reported that 1,3-D caused genetic damage in mice, bacteria, and laboratory-grown cells from several mammals.
In 2021, California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment compiled studies of genetic damage and found evidence of it in mice, rats, bacteria, fruit flies, and laboratory-grown cells from hamsters and rats.
Environmental Injustice
California is the easiest place to evaluate environmental justice issues related to pesticides because this information is more readily available there than in other states. When I combined California’s pesticide use data for 2021 with demographic data from the U.S. Census Bureau for 2020, I found clear evidence that race and income play an important role in determining who is exposed to 1,3-D.
Of the 10 counties with the highest 1,3-D use, eight were above the state average for the percent of families living in poverty, nine had median incomes less than the state average, and eight were majority Hispanic/Latinx. The bottom line is that people who live in the areas where 1,3-D is widely used are likely to be low-income and Latinx. While the same detailed data is unavailable for the rest of the country, finding similar patterns would not be surprising if such information were provided.
And there’s more to the story in California. The state has set two different safety levels for exposure to 1,3-D. One was set by the CDPR, and the other by OEHHA. Both agencies set a safety level that is supposed to limit exposures to 1,3-D according to what they believe will only cause one cancer case per 100,000 people exposed.
CDPR’s number, focused on people who live near 1,3-D applications, is set at an average air concentration of 0.56 ppb. OEHHA’s number, which applies to everyone in California and is based on health-protective science, is an average air concentration of 0.04 ppb.
As a result, people who live in agricultural areas, likely to be low-income and Latinx, can be exposed to 14 times more 1,3-D than other Californians.
Climate Change Concerns
Dow in Freeport, Texas, manufactures 1,3-D at the largest chemical plant in the Americas. The plant was built to take advantage of natural gas wells close by. I have not come across an accounting of 1,3-D’s carbon footprint, but given that it is made from natural gas, I assume that the carbon footprint of the manufacturing process is likely to be significant. Millions of pounds of this chemical are transported thousands of miles using gasoline or diesel power, adding to the carbon footprint. Finally, the application equipment used for 1,3-D is typically diesel-powered.
Crops grown without 1,3-D and other fumigants can actually reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. A good example comes from research done in California almond orchards in August 2021. The scientists who conducted the study, published in Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, compared conventional almond orchards (commonly treated with 1,3-D) with regenerative, certified organic orchards that do not use 1,3-D or similar pesticides. The study found that organic orchards had 30 percent more carbon in their soil than conventional orchards and, therefore, helped in removing that carbon from the atmosphere and prevented climate change.
You Can Make a Difference
Like many people in the U.S., I live in a county where 1,3-D use is rare, or even zero. No crops grown near me use 1,3-D. But I also consciously choose to avoid eating food that harms people growing or harvesting such crops or those living near fields where they are grown. Fortunately, it’s easy to make a difference. I buy certified organic food as much as possible, especially potatoes and almonds.
Buying organic products is increasingly becoming a popular choice in the U.S., with more than 80 percent of Americans purchasing some organics in 2016, according to a study by the Organic Trade Association. Accessibility to affordable organics is also getting better. More and more standard supermarkets carry organics. In many states, SNAP benefits (food stamps) are doubled for fruits and vegetables, making it easier for SNAP customers to buy organics. Farmers markets, food coops, and community-supported agriculture are other options. The more we buy organic food, the less 1,3-D will be used.
The growing emergence of diseases from animals suggests that we need to rethink our reliance on animals as a food source.
By Vicky Bond
Human and animal health are closely linked, with many diseases shared between them. As our world becomes more developed and interconnected, the proximity between wild animals and humans is shrinking, increasing the risk of disease transmission. At the same time, humans are growing increasingly dependent on animals as a source of food.
The emergence of new diseases is an unfortunate byproduct of these trends. According to the World Health Organization, most of the newly discovered diseases in humans—about 75 percent—have originated in animals in the last three decades. Scientists call these kinds of diseases “zoonotic.”
As humans navigate the growing risk of zoonotic diseases, it is essential to understand how reversing our dependence on meat, dairy, and other animal products can help have a positive impact on our health and that of the planet, while ensuring a better life for the animals.
What Is a Zoonotic Disease?
A zoonotic disease is a disease that transfers from an animal population to humans. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, zoonotic diseases are caused by germs such as bacteria, viruses, parasites, and fungi. Many different types of zoonotic diseases cause human illnesses that range from mild to life-threatening in severity.
It is estimated that six out of ten known infectious diseases that have been reported globally have spread between animals and humans, according to the World Health Organization—and zoonoses are only becoming more frequent.
What Causes Zoonoses?
Humans worldwide live near wild and domesticated animals, largely thanks to our food system’s reliance on industrial animal agriculture. As we navigate the challenges posed by this “unsustainable agricultural intensification”—that is “[destroying] the natural buffers that protect humans from viruses circulating among wildlife,” according to the United Nations—health experts say it has become crucial to understand how zoonotic diseases can spread.
Direct Contact
Diseases can pass from animals to humans who come in direct contact with them by touching an infected animal, for example, or being bitten by one. Zoonotic diseases usually spread through direct contact with an infected animalʼs bodily fluids, such as urine, blood, saliva, feces, or mucus.
Indirect Contact
Humans can also become infected in an animalʼs habitat or living quarters. For example, zoonoses can spread to a human while cleaning out an aquarium or chicken coop or while handling a petʼs food and water dishes. On industrial chicken farms, birds live in squalid conditions with the floor drenched in urine and feces, leading to the ideal conditions for animals to get sick.
Vector-Borne
In epidemiology, a “vector” usually refers to insects, arachnids, and other small organisms that spread an infection from one host to another.
An infected tick, for instance, can attach to a human and transmit Lymes disease. This is also why mosquito bites can potentially cause severe illnesses like the Zika virus, malaria, and yellow fever.
Foodborne
Foodborne diseases, or food poisoning, can be caused by eating raw or undercooked animal products. Eggs and chicken are among the most common sources of food poisoning. Salmonella and campylobacter—from raw eggs and chicken—are common zoonotic diseases. Chickens are among the most widely farmed land animals in the U.S. and worldwide. The U.S. raised more than 9 billion chickens for meat in 2020 alone.
Waterborne
Consuming water contaminated with harmful bacteria can cause illness in humans. For example, lakes, rivers, and streams contaminated with animal waste might have elevated levels of E. coli bacteria—found in the fecal matter of warm-blooded animals.
coli contamination is one reason why factory farms can have devastating impacts on neighboring water bodies. If ingested by humans, the contaminated water can cause anything from minor stomach discomfort to serious health problems or even death.
How Do Zoonotic Diseases Spread Between Animals and People?
There are many ways for zoonotic diseases to spread between animals and people. However, public health researchers have found a common thread through many of the primary drivers of zoonotic diseases. Namely, factory farming and the consumption of animals around the world are sharply driving up the risks that could cause the next significant outbreak.
Farming and Ranching
By a conservative estimate, the agricultural industry has been responsible for around half of all new zoonotic diseases since 1940, according to a November 2022 paper in Science Advances. Epidemiologists say that percentage is probably higher. Nearly every aspect of intensive animal farming contributes to conditions ideal for spreading disease—overly stressed animals, who often live in sordid conditions and are crowded into tight spaces with one another, regularly come into contact with human workers.
Intensive animal farming creates a perfect storm for spreading zoonotic disease.
Wildlife Trade
In addition to animal agriculture, both the legal and illegal wildlife trade—which refers to the global commerce of non-domesticated animals and plants—are serious drivers of zoonotic disease.
A 2021 study published in Current Biology found that more than 25 percent of the mammals in the wildlife trade host 75 percent of all known zoonotic diseases. Because the complex process of transporting these animals results in “upward of 1 billion direct and indirect contacts among wildlife, animals, and domestic animals,” the studyʼs lead author, K. Nagaraju Shivaprakash, concluded that “[W]ildlife trade… is [conceivably] a significant factor in the global spread of zoonotic and emerging infectious diseases.”
Animal Captivity
Holding animals in captivity and exploiting them for human entertainment poses many ethical and moral problems. Animals in captivity also pose public health risks. Petting zoos and other animal exhibits where humans can directly touch captive animals are particularly concerning. Between 1990 and 2000, more than 25 zoonotic outbreaks were linked to animal exhibits, according to 2007 figures provided by the CDC.
Insect Vectors
There are more than a billion insects for every human on Earth. While these tiny beings are essential to our survival, some can also carry deadly diseases.
Ticks, fleas, and female mosquitoes (male mosquitoes don’t bite) can cause various illnesses, most of which are now treatable. However, one of the worst pandemics in history, the Black Plague, has been traced back to infected fleas.
Deforestation and Habitat Destruction
Deforestation and habitat destruction—primarily driven by the agriculture industry—pose serious environmental risks. When wild animals see their habitats destroyed, they have no choice but to uproot and search for a new home. As they make these journeys, they are more likely to “bump into” other animals, increasing the chances for a once-contained disease to spill over to another population.
Climate Change
For reasons similar to habitat destruction, scientists say climate change is already increasing the chances of humans experiencing more frequent zoonotic pandemics. “Using recent estimates of the rate of increase in disease emergence from zoonotic reservoirs associated with environmental change, we estimate that the yearly probability of occurrence of extreme epidemics can increase up to threefold in the coming decades,” warns a 2021 article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The resulting extreme heat at the equator caused by global warming has many species racing toward the poles for more hospitable climates. This has prompted once-remote animal species to travel great distances, likely increasing their chances of contact with humans and other animals and potentially spreading disease.
Contaminated Food and Water
Food or water that has been contaminated by a bacterium, virus, or parasite leads to tens of millions of annual food poisoning cases and more than 1,000 deaths in the United States alone, according to the CDC.
The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control found that chickens and chicken meat accounted for roughly 20 to 30 percent of these human infection cases.
How Are Zoonoses Classified?
Public health experts classify zoonoses by their root cause. In other words, the disease pathogen could be a bacterium, a virus, or something else.
Bacterial Zoonoses
Bacterial zoonoses are diseases caused by single-cell microorganisms found almost everywhere on Earth and inside the human body. Most bacteria are harmless or even helpful, and relatively few cause disease.
Viral Zoonoses
Viral zoonoses are diseases caused by viruses, which are infectious microbes made up of DNA or RNA surrounded by a “protein coat.” They can infect humans, other animals, plants, fungi, and bacteria.
Parasitic Zoonoses
Parasitic zoonoses are diseases caused by parasites that attach themselves to or are found inside a hostʼs body. Parasitic diseases can spread from animals to humans through the consumption of raw or undercooked meat or by consuming food or water contaminated by an infected animalʼs stool.
Fungal Zoonoses
Fungal zoonoses are diseases caused by fungi, spore-producing organisms such as molds, yeasts, and mushrooms. Fungi can cause topical infections on a person’s body (such as skin rashes and brittle nails) or inside the body (such as infections of the lungs or bloodstream).
Rickettsial Zoonoses
Rickettsial zoonoses are diseases caused by an unusual type of bacteria that can live only inside the cells of other organisms. Rickettsial infections are usually transmitted to humans through bites from vectors such as ticks, lice, fleas, and mites.
Chlamydial Zoonoses
Chlamydial zoonoses are diseases caused by a family of bacteria called chlamydiae, one of the most common infectious agents affecting humans. One type of the bacteria is frequently transmitted in people as a sexually transmitted infection—and is often referred to colloquially as chlamydia. Another version, however, affects domesticated birds and can spread to humans when handling their birds or cleaning out their cages.
Mycoplasma Zoonoses
Mycoplasma zoonoses are diseases caused by an atypical family of bacteria that are harder to kill through antibiotics. Mycoplasma pneumoniae can infect the human respiratory system—a mild form of pneumonia is often called “walking pneumonia”—and spreads through tiny droplets from coughs and sneezes. There have also been reported cases of this sort of bacteria spreading from animals to humans.
Protozoal Zoonoses
Protozoal zoonoses are diseases caused by protozoal parasites and often spread from companion animals to their owners. Many humans are protected from these types of diseases by strong immune systems. However, immunocompromised pet caretakers are at a much higher risk.
Acellular Non-Viral Pathogenic Zoonoses
Acellular non-viral pathogenic zoonoses refer to diseases caused by very unusual and not well-understood pathogens, such as prion, a misfolded protein. Prion is believed to be the cause of neurological disorders such as mad cow disease and similar diseases affecting the brains of humans.
Zoonotic Disease Examples
Avian Influenza
Avian influenza, or bird flu, is a viral disease that primarily affects wild waterfowl and domesticated poultry. As of April 10, 2024, more than 85 million poultry have been affected by a bird flu outbreak, the majority of which were egg-laying hens raised in cramped cages. While it has infected humans in rare cases, given the ongoing, severe outbreak in both wild and domestic bird populations, public health experts are concerned about more potential spillover events in the near future.
Due to the sheer number of birds we factory farm, we are dramatically increasing this risk. Keeping birds in closed confines, filthy conditions, and continually stressed is the perfect environment for bird flu to flourish.
Salmonellosis
Salmonellosis is caused by an infection from salmonella bacteria, which live in the digestive tracts of birds and other animals. Humans risk infection if they do not practice good hand-washing habits and consume raw eggs, unpasteurized dairy products, or undercooked meat.
Psittacosis
Humans can contract psittacosis from infected pet birds, such as parrots and cockatiels, or domesticated poultry, such as chickens and turkeys. The illness is usually quite mild and relatively brief in humans.
Rabies
Rabies is a viral disease that can affect any mammal but is most associated with bats, raccoons, skunks, foxes, and dogs. Rabies is usually transmitted to humans through the bite of an infected animal. The infection affects the central nervous system and is nearly always fatal once symptoms are present.
Cat Scratch Disease
Cat scratch disease is a bacterial infection. It can spread to humans when a cat licks an open wound or scratches a person deep enough to break the skin. The infection can cause redness around the site of the wound, swollen glands, and flu-like symptoms. While the symptoms are usually mild, in rare cases, the infection can become serious if it spreads to other organs.
Malaria
Malaria is a disease caused by a parasite that spreads to humans through mosquito bites. If it is left untreated, malaria can be fatal, especially in children under five. The disease is most commonly found in countries near the equator, especially in sub-Saharan Africa and Oceania.
Zika Virus
Mosquito bites are the most common cause of the Zika virus. However, it can also be passed from a pregnant mother to her child or through sexual contact. The virusʼ symptoms usually include mild rash and illness. However, it can cause serious congenital disorders in newborns.
Lyme Disease
Lyme disease is the most common vector-borne zoonoses in the U.S. It is caused by infected blacklegged tick bites. While relatively easily treatable, if left untreated, Lyme disease can result in prolonged pain, stiffness, and swelling, as well as memory problems and difficulty concentrating.
Bubonic Plague
Responsible for the most infamous pandemic in history—known as the Black Plague or Black Death—the bubonic plague still crops up in some cases worldwide. However, outbreaks of this bacteria-borne zoonotic disease can be controlled with antibiotics.
Swine Flu
Also known as the H1N1 flu, swine flu is caused by an influenza virus that began infecting humans in 2009, causing a pandemic in humans, pigs, and birds. Pigs with swine flu may develop symptoms ranging from fever, coughing, and sneezing to depression and a lack of appetite. Humans can get sick from being near pigs on farms or at county fairs.
COVID-19
Scientists agree the COVID-19 pandemic originated from a nonhuman animal. However, there is yet to be a definitive conclusion about the source. According to WHO, the leading theory is that the COVID-19 virus originated in bats and spread to humans via another animal.
Who Is at Risk of Zoonotic Diseases?
As the far-reaching effects of COVID-19 have taught us, no one is immune from getting a zoonotic disease. However, various risk factors can put certain people at higher risk of infection than others.
According to the CDC, children under five, adults more than 65 years old, those with weakened immune systems, and pregnant women are at heightened risk of serious illness from zoonotic diseases.
What Can You Do to Protect Yourself from Zoonotic Diseases?
Animals are all around us, whether they are buzzing around us outdoors, wandering through our backyards, or even living inside our homes. This means there is always a chance of a bacterium, virus, or other pathogen jumping from an infected animal to one of us.
The CDC has laid out a practical list of ways to protect ourselves from preventable zoonotic diseases:
Wash your hands after touching animals or animal products. Soap and running water for 20 seconds is one of the most effective ways to stop the spread of germs. If soap and water arenʼt available, using a hand sanitizer that contains at least 60 percent alcohol is the next best thing.
Avoid tick, flea, and mosquito bites outdoors by wearing bug spray and long-sleeved clothing and paying attention to CDC health warnings in your area.
If you have companion animals in your home, educate yourself about what diseases typically affect them and how to keep them healthy.
However, the rise of industrial animal agriculture over the 20th century has transformed our food system into one in which thousands of animals are packed into dense, unclean living quarters—creating conditions ripe for disease. While taking individual precautions to avoid contracting zoonoses is essential, the threat remains high unless we collectively change our relationship with nonhuman animals.
Preventing Zoonotic Disease Globally
Public health experts agree that the world needs to address the primary root cause of emerging zoonotic diseases: animal consumption. A 2022 research article in the journal Science Advances explains that changing how we raise animals for meat is insufficient to stem the accelerated rise in these diseases.
Intensive agriculture is the leading cause of deforestation, which drives the global spread of disease. To further increase productivity, animals are increasingly kept in more intensive systems, but this process involves confining animals—and their waste—together into tight spaces. Not only is this inhumane, but in such large numbers and under so much stress, it also greases the wheels for the spread of disease.
Research shows that slowing the spread of zoonotic diseases will require reducing global reliance on animal products as a food source while accelerating forest conservation efforts worldwide.
Ending Intensive Animal Agriculture
Much work remains to end intensive animal agriculture and make the world a safer place for humans and nonhuman animals.
We must hold corporations and elected officials accountable for how their actions affect nonhuman animals’ well-being and public health. Governments must stop subsidizing animal agriculture and instead support more sustainable farming practices.
More awareness is also required to educate people about the atrocities inflicted on animals to support intensive farming and to highlight the overall environmental and health benefits of moving toward a plant-based diet.
Vicky Bond is a veterinary surgeon, animal welfare scientist, and the president of The Humane League, a global nonprofit organization working to end the abuse of animals raised for food through institutional and individual change. She is a contributor to the Observatory. Follow her on Twitter @vickybond_THL.
The “lungs of North America,” the Tongass National Forest is the Earth’s largest intact temperate rainforest. Protecting it means protecting the entire planet.
By Reynard Loki
Spanning 16.7 million acres that stretch across most of southeast Alaska, the Tongass National Forest is the largest national forest in the United States by far and part of the world’s largest temperate rainforest. Humans barely inhabit it: About the size of West Virginia, the Tongass has around 70,000 residents spread across 32 communities.
The Tongass is a pristine region that supports a vast array of stunning ecosystems, including old-growth forests, imposing mountains, granite cliffs, deep fjords, remnants of ancient glaciers that carved much of the North American landscape, and more than 1,000 named islands facing the open Pacific Ocean—a unique feature in America’s national forest system.
The Tongass “is the crown jewel of America’s natural forests,” declared then-Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) during Senate deliberations of Interior Department budget appropriations in 2003. “When I was up there, I saw glaciers, mountains, growths of hemlock and cedar that grow to be over 200 feet tall. The trees can live as long as a thousand years.”
Carbon sinks absorb more carbon from the atmosphere than they release, making them essential to maintaining natural ecosystems and an invaluable nature-based solution to the climate crisis. Between 2001 and 2019, the Earth’s forests safely stored about twice as much carbon dioxide as they emitted, according to research published in 2021 in the journal Nature Climate Change and available on Global Forest Watch.
The planet’s forests absorb 1.5 times more carbon than the United States emits annually—around 7.6 billion metric tons. Consequently, maintaining the health of the world’s forests is central to humanity’s fight against climate change. But rampant deforestation and land degradation are not only removing this invaluable climate-regulating ecosystem service and supporter of biodiversity but also disturbing a healthy, natural planetary system that has existed for millennia.
“There is a natural carbon cycle on our planet,” said Vlad Macovei, a postdoctoral researcher at the Helmholtz-Zentrum Hereon in Germany. “Every year, some atmospheric carbon gets taken up by land biosphere, some by the ocean, and then cycled back out. These processes had been in balance for the last 10,000 years.”
Carbon sinks like the Tongass are vital environmental protectors by sequestering carbon dioxide and preventing this greenhouse gas from entering the atmosphere, where it can fuel global warming. And because “it contains the [Earth’s] largest intact stands of coastal temperate rainforest,” the Tongass acts as one of the world’s most effective carbon sinks. In this way, the Tongass provides a key “ecosystem service”—a benefit humans receive from nature that helps sustain life—not just for the U.S. but also for the entire planet.
“Basically, when you go through an old-growth forest, you’re walking through a stick of carbon that has been built up into the forest for many, many decades, [even] centuries,” said Dominick DellaSala, chief scientist at Wild Heritage, a project of Earth Island Institute, a nonprofit environmental organization based in Berkeley, California. DellaSala was part of a research team that found that the Tongass holds approximately 44 percent of all carbon stored by U.S. national forests. The team’s research was published in 2021 by the Woodwell Climate Research Center, based in Falmouth, Massachusetts.
“[T]he largest trees in those forests store about 50 percent of the above-ground carbon, so they are enormously important from a carbon standpoint,” said DellaSala.
These undisturbed forest lands are increasingly scarce and, therefore, increasingly valuable ecosystems. “While tropical rainforests are the lungs of the planet, the Tongass… [acts as] the lungs of North America,” DellaSala told PBS in 2020. He calls the Tongass “America’s last climate sanctuary.”
“The Tongass National Forest provides us with the greatest opportunity in the nation, if not the world, for protecting temperate rainforest at the ecosystem scale, in the face of climate change,” according to Audubon Alaska, a nonprofit conservation organization. “It sequesters more carbon than any other type of forest on Earth, providing a much-needed opportunity for climate solutions that can simultaneously bolster regional economies.”
Unfortunately, as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency points out, “ecosystem services are important to environmental and human health and well-being… [but they are] often taken for granted.”
Impact of Logging
Jerry Melillo, a scientist at the Ecosystems Center of the Marine Biological Laboratory at the University of Chicago, noted, “[o]ver the past 8,000 years, humans have cleared up to half of the forests on our planet, mostly to make room for agriculture.” This has hampered the Earth’s natural ability to regulate the climate, allowing more greenhouse gases to escape into the atmosphere, thus exacerbating global warming.
“Cutting down or burning forests releases the carbon stored in their trees and soil and prevents them from absorbing more CO2 in the future,” he wrote. “Since 1850, about 30 percent of all CO2 emissions have come from deforestation. Deforestation can also have more local climate impacts. Because trees release moisture that cools the air around them, scientists have found that deforestation has led to more intense heat waves in North America and Eurasia.”
In the 1950s, the Forest Service contracted with two U.S. timber companies to build pulp mills near Ketchikan and Sitka. As part of the agreements, the agency promised to sell the firms a total of 13.5 billion board feet of Tongass timber over a 55-year period. These contracts massively accelerated logging in the region.
Since these contracts were signed, “more than 1 million acres of the Tongass have been clearcut,” according to the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council. Adding economic insult to ecological injury, the federal government consistently loses money from logging contracts in the Tongass. According to a 2020 report by Taxpayers for Common Sense, an independent, nonpartisan advocacy group, the Forest Service has lost more than $1.7 billion on Tongass timber sales since 1980. “It actually costs taxpayers millions to ‘sell’ timber that we collectively own, which makes no sense,” said Autumn Hanna, the group’s vice president.
“Scientists have long understood that logging old-growth forests triggers a cascade of negative effects on wildlife, eroding the biodiversity of places like the Tongass,” wrote Rebecca Bowe of Earthjustice, a nonprofit environmental organization headquartered in San Francisco, in 2021. “Clear-cutting old-growth… transforms ancient forests into carbon emitters.”
Women’s Earth and Climate Action Network, International (WECAN International) is a climate activist group that works with Earthjustice to end the destruction of old-growth logging in the Tongass. “The Tongass has been called ‘America’s Climate Forest’ due to its unsurpassed ability to mitigate climate impacts,” said Osprey Orielle Lake, WECAN’s executive director, in 2021. “For decades, however, industrial-scale logging has been destroying this precious ecosystem and disrupting the traditional lifeways, medicine, and food systems of the region’s Indigenous communities.”
“One of the things that the Forest Service is interested in doing is estimating the value of the different activities and services that national forests provide,” said J. Ryan Bellmore, a biologist who co-authored a 2019 study, the first of its kind, that estimated the value of the Tongass and the Chugach National Forests to the commercial salmon industry in Alaska. “And the Tongass and the Chugach provide a lot of salmon.”
According to the study, the wild salmon born within the boundaries of the Tongass and the Chugach make up around 25 percent of Alaska’s commercial Pacific salmon catch and 16 percent of the total commercial value of salmon caught in the state every year. Commercial fishermen caught an average of 48 million “forest salmon” in Alaska yearly during the 10-year-long study period. That amount of salmon translated to an annual average commercial value of $88 million.
What these Alaskan fisheries provide goes beyond their quantifiable and significant economic benefit and food source for the people of Alaska and beyond. The salmon have also been part of the traditional way of life for the Indigenous Tribes of the region for millennia. “For over 9,000 years, the [I]ndigenous people of the region have survived because of the salmon,” wrote Brian Footen, a fish biologist who has worked with Tribal, federal, and state fishery departments in Washington state for over two decades. And the fish are also critical for the survival of wildlife, supporting healthy populations of bald eagles, wolves, and brown bears, which in turn, support the entire web of life across the region.
Importance to Indigenous Tribes
The Tongass contains the traditional homelands of the Tlingit, Haida, and Tsimshian peoples, and its well-being is essential to these groups’ traditional way of life, health, and cultural identity. Even the name of the forest itself is wrapped up in Indigenous identity: Translated, “Tongass” means “Sea Lion Tribe,” one of the main divisions of the Tlingit people living at Portland Canal, located at the border between southeastern Alaska and British Columbia.
Joel Jackson, president of the Organized Village of Kake Tribal Council, noted that these Indigenous groups are “tied to our lands that our ancestors walked on thousands of years ago. … The land still provides food security—deer, moose, salmon, berries, our medicines. The old-growth timber is important in keeping all these things coming back year after year,” Jackson said, adding, “especially our salmon, because the trees keep our streams cool.” Maintaining these plentiful resources season after season requires a healthy Tongass.
“I identify my ancestry through descent-based kin groups indigenous to the Tongass Forest and recognize that we are all tied to each other—not independents,” said Wanda “Kashudoha” Loescher Culp, a Tlingit activist, in a statement to federal lawmakers in 2019 urging increased protections for the Tongass.
“Our food gathering and all other resource harvesting methods seriously involve the thanking of the recognized life we are taking for our benefit. We successfully use every ‘resource’ the Tongass offers wisely, efficiently, without waste, and in gratitude,” said Culp, who is also the coordinator for WECAN Tongass.
In addition to being a year-round natural “supermarket,” the Tongass is a powerful spiritual place for the Tribes who have called it home for generations.
Importance to Jobs and Economy
Because of its natural beauty and opportunity for outdoor recreational activities like camping, boating, canoeing, fishing, hiking, and birdwatching, the Tongass is home to a vigorous and ever-expanding tourism industry.
The Tongass welcomes more than 2.8 million visitors each year, which generates “more than $380 million in spending and over 5,000 jobs,” according to the USFS. In particular, the cruise industry provides vital economic inputs to the local economies across southeast Alaska. “The vast majority of visitors to Southeast Alaska are cruise ship passengers,” according to the USFS.
“Hundreds of thousands of tourists visit the Tongass each summer in the hopes of experiencing its magnificence: 200-foot-tall spruce and 500-year-old cedar trees soaring overhead,” states Alaska Conservation Foundation, the only public foundation dedicated solely to conservation in Alaska. “Amid the lush ferns and mossy remnants of fallen trees, one might see a brown bear ambling its way to a salmon stream, in search of its next meal. There is simply no place else like it.”
Tongass Timber Reform Act of 1990
In 1990, President George H.W. Bush signed into law the Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA), which was crafted as an amendment to the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) of 1980, a federal law signed by President Jimmy Carter that established protection for more than 100 million acres of federal land in Alaska from development by designating “conservation system units,” including national parks, national wildlife refuges, and designated wilderness areas.
The main goal of the TTRA—which enjoyed massive congressional support, passing in the Senate 99 to 0—was to increase the protection of the Tongass National Forest from the ecological harms of industrial logging by designating approximately 856,000 acres as roadless areas so that large swaths of old-growth forest would “retain their wildland character.” Specifically, the act was intended “to protect certain lands in the Tongass National Forest in perpetuity, to modify certain long-term timber contracts, [and] to provide for [the] protection of riparian habitat.”
Following the law’s enactment, Alaska Pulp Corporation and Ketchikan Pulp Company, two industrial pulp mills located in southeast Alaska, ended their operations in 1993 and 1997, respectively. Alaska’s congressional delegation blamed the closures on environmentalists, the TTRA, and the Clinton administration “for destroying an industry that had been the region’s largest private employer,” wrote Rich Moniak, in a column for Juneau Empire in which he called that narrative a “fiction.”
The “TTRA was not a substantial factor—indeed, no factor at all—in the closure of the pulp mill and the resulting termination of the contract,” concluded Lawrence M. Baskir, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims judge who presided over the lawsuit that Alaska Pulp Corporation filed in 1994, a year after it closed its mill, in part due to declining demand for softwood pulp.
Bart Koehler, the executive director of Southeast Alaska Conservation Council from 1984 to 1991 and from 1995 to 1999, who was part of the grassroots effort to pass the Tongass Timber Reform Act, called the law “the most significant piece of conservation law signed by President George H.W. Bush.”
The Roadless Rule of 2001
In 1999, President Bill Clinton instructed the USFS to develop regulations to protect the nation’s roadless areas. The administration aimed to protect the nation’s biodiversity, air and water quality, opportunities for public recreational activities, and local economies. “In the final regulations, the nature and degree of protection afforded should reflect the best available science and a careful consideration of the full range of ecological, economic, and social values inherent in these lands,” Clinton stated at the time.
Issued in 2001, the Forest Service’s “Roadless Rule” is a federal regulation prohibiting most timber cutting and road building in specific forest lands known as “Inventoried Roadless Areas.” The Roadless Rule protects 58.5 million acres or 31 percent of lands within the federal National Forest System (NFS), which together amounts to about 2 percent of the total land base of the United States.
“Inventoried roadless areas provide benefits to over 220 wildlife species listed as either threatened, endangered, or proposed by the Endangered Species Act—approximately 25 percent of all animal species and 13 percent of all plant species,” according to the USFS. “The intent of the 2001 Roadless Rule is to provide lasting protection for inventoried roadless areas within the National Forest System,” the agency states.
Trump Administration Rollback of Roadless Rule
The 2001 Roadless Rule designates and manages as inventoried roadless areas more than half of the Tongass National Forest—around 9.2 million acres. On October 29, 2020, in the final days of his presidency, Trump repealed the Roadless Rule from the Tongass, opening up a section of the forest to road-building and industrial activity. Trump’s USDA issued a notice saying that the final plan would open up 186,000 acres for timber production.
GOP leaders welcomed the decision.
Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who was at the time the chair of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, noted that Trump’s repeal of the Roadless Rule would help the state develop not only public infrastructure to help connect the isolated communities in the area but also cheaper sources of energy.
Industry groups also supported the decision. “There’s a handful of small operators that are working on the Tongass, harvesting timber,” Tessa Axelson of the Alaska Forest Association, a timber industry group, told Alaska Public Media. “In order to continue to survive, those businesses are dependent on a predictable supply of timber.”
Frank Bergstrom, a mining consultant in Juneau, said the rollback could attract investors to mineral exploration in the region. “There’s no roadmap to these things,” he said. “Maybe it’ll lead to a little more optimism. … This is one obstacle that has at least been diminished.”
Environmental groups decried the move. “Logging the Tongass is an unconscionable leap in the wrong direction,” said Jennifer Rokala, executive director for the Center for Western Priorities, a nonpartisan conservation advocacy group.
“Americans already pay $30 million annually to subsidize commercial logging operations on the portion of the Tongass not covered by the roadless rule. This proposed decision would increase the costs to taxpayers by opening the most remote areas of the forest to clear-cutting,” said Ken Rait, project director for U.S. public lands and rivers conservation at Pew Charitable Trusts. “The Tongass is a global gem. Once these pristine forests are gone, they’re gone forever.”
The Trump administration rollback went against overwhelming public opposition: Only 1 percent of public comments submitted to the federal government during the U.S. Forest Service’s environmental review supported lifting the existing safeguards on the Tongass.
Statewide polling in Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—all battleground states—conducted in 2020 also revealed strong opposition to the Trump administration’s decision to lift longtime environmental protections and open the Tongass to expanded logging operations.
Following the poll’s release, J.D. Hayworth, a Republican former member of Congress who represented Arizona from 1995 to 2007 and spent the majority of his six terms in office on the House Resources Committee, warned the Trump campaign months before Trump’s decision to lift the Roadless Rule in the Tongass was finalized that the move would hurt his chances at reelection.
“Now, with less than 75 days until election day, the Trump campaign needs to listen to the concerned voices of their base whose wavering support for Trump could be pushed further into the Biden camp if Trump moves forward with lifting protections in America’s largest and most important national forest,” Hayworth wrote in an opinion piece published by Bloomberg Law in August 2020.
After Trump lost the 2020 presidential election, his revocation of the Roadless Rule would remain for about two more years. The Roadless Rule was important enough to the incoming Biden administration that on his first day in office, Biden committed to reviewing the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule of his predecessor as one “that may conflict with important national objectives including protecting the environment.” Still, reinstating the 2001 rule would still take around two years, as the Biden administration went through the lengthy federal review process, including months of allowing the public to comment. In addition, there was an ultimately failed lawsuit filed by the resource industries and the state of Alaska attempting to maintain Trump’s rollback that had to make its way through the court system.
Photo Credit: Flickr / jimmywayne
Biden Administration Reinstatement of the Roadless Rule
In July 2021, six months after he took office, President Biden froze old-growth timber sales in the Tongass as the administration began the lengthy process to reinstate the Roadless Rule. “The announcement that large-scale, old-growth logging is going to be ceased is very positive… because those mass clear cuts are not going to occur here anymore,” said Marina Anderson, Tribal administrator for the Organized Village of Kasaan on Prince of Wales Island.
Finally, in January 2023, the Biden administration was able to reinstate the Roadless Rule on Alaska’s Tongass National Forest, which brought back the 2001 protections that had been in place. The decision made constructing roads and harvesting timber inventoried roadless areas illegal, with limited exceptions.
“As our nation’s largest national forest and the largest intact temperate rainforest in the world, the Tongass National Forest is key to conserving biodiversity and addressing the climate crisis,” said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. “Restoring roadless protections listens to the voices of Tribal Nations and the people of Southeast Alaska while recognizing the importance of fishing and tourism to the region’s economy.”
In a press release issued on January 25, 2023, the U.S. Department of Agriculture said that the reinstatement of the Roadless Rule in the Tongass was “based on the multiple ecological, social, cultural, and economic values supported by roadless areas on the Tongass, and… [followed] months of engagement with Tribes, rural communities, and partners.” The agency noted that the majority of the approximately 112,000 comments that the Forest Service received from organizations and individuals during the public comment period (from November 2021 to January 2022) were in favor of the reinstatement of the Roadless Rule, adding that the USDA consulted with the Tribal Nations of Southeast Alaska before the decision was made.
This executive order protects not only a pristine, climate-protecting ecosystem and source of economic stability and growth for Alaska but also the traditional and customary hunting, fishing, and gathering areas for future generations of Southeast Alaska Tribes. It also protects an attraction for the millions of visitors whom it welcomes every year from across the nation and the globe. In addition to securing important wildlife and fish habitat, opportunities for recreation, and traditional and sacred sites, roadless areas in the Tongass will prevent the kind of intensive industrial development and resource extraction that have destroyed forests worldwide, many of which are damaged beyond repair.
As mentioned, preventing roads from being built in the Tongass has widespread popular support. According to the USFS, 96 percent of the 1.6 million letters and comments submitted during 600 public meetings supported the roadless initiative in the Tongass. Notably, most Alaskans were in support of maintaining roadless areas.
Republicans Denounce Reinstatement
Unsurprisingly, several leading Alaskan Republicans were quick to slam the Biden administration’s decision to reinstate the Roadless Rule in the Tongass.
“The Roadless Rule should never have applied to the Tongass, and the Biden administration’s decision to reinstate it is federal paternalism at its worst,” said Senator Murkowski. “Roughly 80 percent of the Tongass is already protected through existing law, land use designations, and the forest planning process, and there is no threat of large-scale development from timber harvesting or any other activity.”
This, of course, is not true. In fact, the reinstated rule does not stop public road-building or other necessary projects. Since 2009, the USFS received and approved 59 project proposals under the Roadless Rule that support power generation, access between communities, and other priorities.
Road-building of any sort is a direct threat to wildlife habitat. While much of the Tongass does have federal protection, what Murkowski fails to recognize is that existing manmade structures in the forest have already hampered the ability of wildlife to live in their natural state. Manmade road-stream crossings, including bridges and culverts, have fragmented natural aquatic habitats that impeded fish migrations. As of 2019, according to the USFS, 1,120 fish stream crossings—30 percent of the total surveyed within the Tongass—fail to meet current standards for fish passage. Adding noncritical roads would only increase this kind of wildlife habitat fragmentation and add undue stress to many species.
Indigenous Tribes Welcome Reinstatement of Roadless Rule
The return of Roadless Rule protections to the Tongass represents a commitment from the USFS not only to address the climate crisis but also to respect the natural integrity of the ancestral homeland of Southeast Alaska Tribes, who—like so many Indigenous groups across the globe—continue to be disproportionately impacted by climate change.
“As the Forest Service works to repair relationships with Southeast Tribes,” the leaders wrote in a press statement sent to the Independent Media Institute on January 25, 2023, “it is critical that the federal government ensure that the Southeast Tribal leaders be integral partners in creating a future for the Tongass that is guided by Indigenous values, a genuinely sustainable economy, and a healthy ecosystem—all of which will sustain the Tongass for future generations.”
In January 2023, following the reinstatement of the Roadless Rule, a group of Tribal leaders from the Tongass region issued a statement that said, in part, “We have engaged tirelessly throughout the Roadless Rule process—some of us for more than 20 years—to bring Tribal concerns to the forefront of the conversation through consultation and legal means.”
“Throughout time, many of our concerns fell on deaf ears,” said the Organized Village of Kake’s Joel Jackson in a statement emailed to the Independent Media Institute on March 21, 2023. “Now that the U.S. Forest Service is listening to Tribal concerns and reinstating the Tongass Roadless Rule, we are optimistic that we will be able to create long-term protections.”
“The return of 2001 Roadless Rule protections [to the Tongass also] signals a commitment from the… [U.S. Forest Service] to address the climate crisis and finally listen to the Southeast Tribes that will continue to be most impacted by climate change effects,” said Jackson.
These federal protections include possible co-management compact agreements “for areas inherent to our traditional and cultural uses through our Administrative Procedures Act Petition to Create a Traditional Homelands Conservation Rule,” the leaders’ statement said. Tribes also support the 2021 Southeast Alaska Sustainability Strategy (SASS). The strategy will end large-scale old-growth timber sales in the Tongass National Forest. It will instead focus on forest restoration, recreation, and resilience while identifying opportunities for investments through meaningful consultation with Tribes.
Going even further, Southeast Alaska Tribes will continue working toward permanent forest protection. The Roadless Area Conservation Act was introduced in the House in 2021 to put these protections in place.
The seesaw of the Roadless Rule between presidential administrations shows that executive orders can be issued and rescinded. The only way to prevent this back-and-forth policy would be for lawmakers to enshrine protections for the Tongass in state and federal law or for the judiciary to clarify the Roadless Rule’s original intent to protect the Tongass.
“The uncertainty with the Roadless Rule has been a debilitating factor for the last 20 years, and I do not see that ending unless the courts put a stop to it—the political revolving door will keep it in play as long as there are elections,” wrote Robert Venables, executive director of the Southeast Conference. This southeast Alaska regional economic development group supported the Roadless Rule revision in 2020.
“Conserving our forests and other critical ecosystems is… an indispensable piece of keeping our climate goals within reach,” said U.S. President Joe Biden at the Glasgow conference. “If we all work together to make sure these precious resources are conserved… forests have the potential to reduce… carbon globally by more than one-third… So, we need to approach this issue with the same seriousness of purpose as decarbonizing our economies. That’s what we’re doing in the United States.”
Biden went on to mention the Tongass specifically, saying, “We have put in place protections for the Tongass Forest in Alaska, the world’s largest intact temperate rainforest.” He also announced a “new plan to conserve global forests, which will bring together a full range of U.S. government tools—diplomatic, financial, and policy—to halt forest loss, restore our critical carbon sinks, and improve land management. Through this plan, the United States will help the world deliver on our shared goal of halting natural forest loss and restoring at least an additional 200 million hectares of forests and other ecosystems by the year 2030.”
That is a massive amount of land. To put that figure into context, 200 million hectares is about 770,000 square miles—eclipsing the size of the state of Alaska by more than 100,000 square miles. The area is bigger than many nations, including Mongolia, Indonesia, and Mexico.
Environmental advocates cheered the move. Darci Vetter, global head of policy and government relations at the Nature Conservancy, an environmental nonprofit, called Biden’s executive order “a clear recognition of the critical role forests play for our climate and our communities. This science-based, cooperative approach to forest conservation and restoration is a smart strategy we should accelerate and amplify.”
Conclusion
Based on scientific evidence, it is clear that the Tongass National Forest is an important carbon sink not just for the United States—where it stores more than 40 percent of all the carbon stored by all the national forests—but also for the world at large, being the Earth’s largest remaining temperate rainforest.
The Tongass is also home to a rich diversity of plant and animal species, many of which are unique and found nowhere else in the world. It is a refuge for numerous endangered and threatened species, including the iconic bald eagle and the Alexander Archipelago wolf. Preserving this habitat ensures the continuation of these species and maintains the ecosystem’s delicate balance.
If the Tongass were subject to large-scale development, irreversible damage would be inflicted upon this unique ecosystem. Deforestation and infrastructure projects could lead to habitat fragmentation, loss of biodiversity, and disruption of critical ecological processes.
Additionally, the Tongass National Forest is a significant driver of Alaska’s sustainable economy, particularly fishing, tourism, and recreation. The forest attracts visitors worldwide, drawn to its stunning landscapes, abundant wildlife, and outdoor recreational opportunities. The commercial fishing industry, which heavily depends on the health of the forest’s rivers and streams, also benefits from its protection.
Crucially, the forest is deeply woven into the cultural fabric of Indigenous communities like the Tlingit, Haida, and Tsimshian peoples, who have relied on its resources for millennia. It holds spiritual, cultural, and traditional values, making its preservation essential for respecting the rights and heritage of these native groups.
Following the Biden administration’s reinstatement of the Roadless Rule in January 2023, Dr. Homer Wilkes, the USDA under-secretary for natural resources and environment, said, “Protecting the Tongass will support watershed protection, climate benefits, and ecosystem health and protect areas important for jobs and community well-being—and it is directly responsive to input from Tribal Nations.”
In their January 2023 statement, Southeast Alaskan Tribal leaders said, “As the USDA works to repair its relationship with our Tribal governments and communities on the ground, the agency will continue to be an integral partner in creating a future for the Tongass that is guided by collaboration, Indigenous leadership and values, the needs of future generations, and sustainable economies that will heal the divisions of the past.”
Preserving the integrity of Tongass National Forest is crucial for the Earth’s well-being. By safeguarding this irreplaceable ecosystem and awe-inspiring landscape, humanity can achieve many positive outcomes, from combatting the impacts of the climate crisis and protecting biodiversity to honoring Indigenous cultures and sustainably supporting local economies. As the Tongass is part of the United States, it is the responsibility of all Americans to act as stewards of this natural treasure, ensuring that future generations can continue to benefit from its immense ecological and cultural value.
Reynard Loki is a co-founder of the Observatory, where he is the environment and animal rights editor. He is also a writing fellow at the Independent Media Institute, where he serves as the editor and chief correspondent of Earth | Food | Life. He previously served as the environment, food, and animal rights editor at AlterNet and as a reporter for Justmeans/3BL Media, covering sustainability and corporate social responsibility. He was named one of FilterBuy’s Top 50 Health and Environmental Journalists to Follow in 2016. His work has been published by Yes! Magazine, Salon, Truthout, BillMoyers.com, Asia Times, Pressenza, and EcoWatch, among many others. He volunteers with New York City Pigeon Rescue Central.
The struggle for environmental justice in Africa is complex and broad. It is the continuation of the fight for the liberation of the continent and for socio-ecological transformation. It is a fact that the environment is our life: The soil, rivers, and air are not inanimate or lifeless entities. We are rooted and anchored in our environment. Our roots are sunk into our environment and that is where our nourishment comes from. We do not see the Earth and her bountiful gifts as items that must be exploited, transformed, consumed, or wasted. The understanding of the Earth as a living entity and not a dead thing warns that rapacious exploitation that disrupts her regenerative powers are acts of cruelty or ecocide.
We bear in mind that colonialism was erected on the right to subjugate, erase, or diminish the right to life and the right to the unfettered cultural expression of the colonized. In particular, the colonized were dehumanized and transformed into zombies working for the benefit of the colonial powers. Ecological pillage was permitted as long as it benefited the colonizers. This ethos has persisted and manifests in diverse forms. Grand theft by the colonial forces was seen as entrepreneurship. Genocide was overlooked as mere conquest. Slavery was seen as commerce. Extractivism was to be pursued relentlessly as any element left unexploited was considered a waste. What could be wasted with no compunction was life. So most things had to die. The civilizers were purveyors of death. Death of individuals. Death of ecosystems.
Thus, today, people still ask: What would we do with the crude oil or fossil gas in our soil if we do not exploit them? In other words, how could we end poverty if we do not destroy our environment and grab all it could be forced to yield? We tolerate deforestation, and unregulated industrial fishing, and run a biosafety regulation system that promotes the introduction of needless genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and by doing so, endanger our biodiversity and compromise our environment and food systems.
Plunder is presented as inescapable and desired under the cloak of foreign investment. Political leaders in despoiled regions offer ease of doing business, tax holidays, sundry lax rules, and other neocolonial governance policies.
The reign of exploitation and consumption without responsibility has driven Africa and indeed the world to the brink. The current civilization of death seeks ready investment in destruction through warfare and extractivism rather than in building resilience and adapting to the environmental changes that result from corporate and imperial misadventures.
We are in a reign in which condescension is the hallmark of multilateralism. The collective action needed to tackle global warming has been reduced to puny “nationally determined contributions” that add up to nothing. Rather than recognizing and paying a clear climate debt, we expend energy negotiating a loss and damage regime to be packaged as a humanitarian gesture. Pray, who negotiates what is offered as charity?
Today, Africa is facing multiple ecological challenges. All of these have resulted from the actions of entities that have seen the continent as a sacrificial zone. While the world has come to the conclusion that there must be an urgent shift from dependence on fossil fuels, we are seeing massive investments for the extraction of petroleum resources on the continent. And we must say that this investment comes with related infrastructure for the export of these resources out of the continent in a crass colonial pattern. A mere 1 percent of the labor force in the extractive sector in Africa are Africans. A mere 5 percent of investment in the sector is in Africa. More than 85 percent of the continent’s fossil gas infrastructure is for export purposes.
The shift to renewable energy brings the same old challenges to Africa. Extraction of critical minerals for renewable energy is done without prior consultation with and consent of our people. The continent’s environment is being degraded just as it has been with the extraction of oil, gas, gold, diamond, nickel, cobalt, and other solid minerals. The array of solar panels and wind turbines could well become markers of crime scenes if precautionary measures are not taken now.
Are we against renewable energy? No. They provide the best pathway toward ending the energy deficit on the continent. However, this should be pursued through discrete, autonomous, and socialized ownership schemes.
While the world knows that we must rebuild our biodiversity, what we see is the push towards more deforestation in Africa and for monoculture agriculture, all of which are against our best interest and that of the world. A sore issue, land grabbing has not disappeared with the coming innovations.
As Chinua Achebe writes in his classic 1958 book Things Fall Apart about Eneke the bird, “Since men have learned to shoot without missing, he has learned to fly without perching.” For us, until the despoilers of our environment halt their destructive acts, we will intensify our resistance and never give in to their designs. We believe this conference will not only break the yoke of colonialism but will also puncture the hold of coloniality. Our book, Politics of Turbulent Waters, is one of the tools toward these ends.
Every African nation should:
Commit to issuing an annual State of Environment Report to lay out the situation of things in their territories.
End destructive extraction no matter the appeal of capital.
Demand climate debt for centuries of ecological exploitation and harm.
Require remediation, restoration of all degraded territories, and pay reparations to direct victims or their heirs.
Support and promote food sovereignty including by adopting agroecology.
Adopt and promote African cultural tools and philosophies for the holistic tackling of ecological challenges and for the healing and well-being of our people and communities.
Promote and provide renewable energy in a democratized manner.
Recognize our right to water, treat it as a public good, and halt and reverse its privatization.
Recognize the rights of Mother Earth and codify Ecocide as a crime akin to genocide, war crimes, and other unusual crimes.
Ensure that all Africans enjoy the right to live in a safe and satisfactory environment suitable for their progress as enshrined in the African Charter on Peoples and Human Rights.
This article was produced by Earth | Food | Life, a project of the Independent Media Institute. This article is an edited version of a speech the author delivered at Health of Mother Earth Foundation’s 10th Anniversary Conference with the theme ‘Advancing Environmental Justice in Africa’ held in June 2023 in Abuja, Nigeria.
Using the same land for the production of both agriculture and solar energy is a win-win for the climate and farmers.
ByTina Casey
Access to solar power is increasing in rural parts of the U.S., partly with the support of farmers who lease out their land for utility-scale solar arrays. This farm-to-solar trend known as “agrivoltaics”—defined by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) as “the co-location of agricultural production and solar energy generation on the same land”—is intertwined with regenerative farming, a trend that has centuries-old roots within Indigenous cultures. This mindful cooperation between farming and energy poses a threat to the status quo fueling climate change and is facing a surge of opposition, but the emerging field of agrivoltaics could help neutralize the critics and break down barriers to solar development.
The Importance of Rural Solar
Leasing out land for a utility-scale solar array can provide farmers with an important source of steady revenue. The income can be a lifeline for individual farmers, and for entire industries. Solar leasing, for example, is credited with helping to sustain the cranberry industry in Massachusetts.
“[R]ural communities have a significant opportunity to strengthen and diversify their local economies by embracing and actively engaging in the ongoing renewable energy transition,” wrote Katie Siegner, Kevin Brehm, and Mark Dyson, authors of a 2021 report published by Rocky Mountain Institute, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization working to accelerate the clean energy transition.
“By 2030, renewable energy capacity in the United States will at least double, and potentially grow by a factor of seven or higher if new policies are enacted to capitalize on continuing cost declines in wind and solar,” they wrote. “As a result, rural communities—which host 99 percent of onshore wind and a growing share of utility-scale solar projects—stand to receive a sizable boost to their local economies. In fact, annual revenues from wind and solar projects could exceed $60 billion… by 2030—on par with expected revenues from the top three U.S. agricultural commodities: corn, soy, and beef production.”
Bringing more solar energy to rural communities is a priority for the Biden administration with a focus on improving solar access for underserved low- and middle-income communities. Among other provisions, Biden’s 2024 budget proposal specifies $30 million in grants and $1 billion in loan guarantees for solar, other clean energy systems, and energy efficiency improvements for farmers and small businesses in rural communities, along with $15 million toward the creation of a new Rural Clean Energy Initiative tasked with helping electricity providers meet clean energy goals.
Helping rural businesses reduce their dependence on fossil fuels is another priority for many federal policymakers. In the U.S., the funding sources include the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Rural Energy for America Program (REAP), which was created through the 2008 Farm Bill to support energy efficiency upgrades as well as solar and other renewables on farms, including utility-scale projects.
Tina Casey has been writing about sustainability, the global energy transition, and related matters since 2009. She is a regular contributor to the Observatory, CleanTechnica, and TriplePundit, where she also focuses on corporate social responsibility and social issues.
We use Cookies to track and analyze the content you view on our site, and we use this information to help us optimize content. By clicking "Accept," you agree that IMI may store cookies on your device. For more information, read our Cookie Policy.
