Border Fortunes: Promises of ‘Free Money’ at the 2018 Border Security Expo

There’s little talk of actually building a physical wall, though, and more discussion of cameras, facial recognition and other technology.

Maurice Gill practically jumps up and down on stage in his green uniform. “It’s free money!” Gill, law-enforcement liaison with the U.S. Border Patrol, shouts at the crowd. “For us! For you! We need to operationalize right now.”

Gill is addressing a room of around 150 border-security industry executives at the 2018 Border Security Expo in San Antonio, Texas, describing the tidal wave of funding Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement have received from the Trump administration. This year border-security budgets have ballooned, growing 23 percent for border protection and 30 percent for immigration enforcement, two agencies that operate under Department of Homeland Security authority to enforce immigration laws and police borders. This is in stark comparison to budgets slashed 30 percent for the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of State.

border security expo speakers — Photo: Laiken Jordahl

Jay Ahern, former acting head of Customs and Border Protection and principal at the Chertoff Group, suggests to the crowd that this border-security funding boom mirrors that of the post 9/11 era.

“We are surrounded by insurmountable opportunity,” adds Benjamin Huffman, chief of strategic planning and analysis for Customs and Border Protection. He enunciates each word slowly and carefully. The industry executives are attentive, situated at the helm of an industry whose time has come.

An entrepreneurial spirit pervades the three day-conference. Homeland Security officials eagerly describe new frontiers to deploy technology and manpower, and few of these frontiers are anywhere near the physical border. Increased funding and personnel will allow the department to beef up interior enforcement and international operations like never before, which deputy director Elaine Duke calls “the away game of national security.” She describes how the border-security technology industry will play a crucial role in this expansion.

On the expo floor, industry contractors show off their gadgetry, ranging from high-resolution facial recognition cameras to ATVs mounted with assault rifles and air-conditioned K-9 kennels.

Amid talk of drones, biometrics and expanding enterprise, there is conspicuously little discussion of the border wall.

When the wall is mentioned, it is done so with the obligatory “big and beautiful” prefix, or the dubious “sea to shining sea” postscript, each of which elicits an audible chuckle from the crowd. One Border Patrol official likens the wall to a token of acknowledgment for the president. The same official then assures the crowd that no wall will be complete without an arsenal of motion sensors, cameras, lighting and other technology, though these assurances contradict prior reporting that Trump has offered to slash funding for border-security technology in order to pay for his wall.

Of course, there was no discussion of topics such as endangered species, land takings or environmental justice concerns at the Border Security Expo. There’s no need. Due to the legal waiver authority granted to Homeland Security under the Real ID Act of 2005, the department’s secretary holds the singular power to waive any and all laws in regard to constructing barriers and roads along the border. This degree of power wielded by the secretary, an unelected official who can nullify any congressionally mandated law at the strike of a pen, is truly unprecedented.

Using the Real ID Act waiver, the Trump administration has already waived dozens of environmental and public-health laws to build border-wall prototypes, replace sections of fencing in San Diego and build new fencing in the Chihuahuan Desert of New Mexico. Laws voided by the administration include the Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Clean Water Act, Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and dozens more. Due to this unchecked authority to waive any and all laws, the administration doesn’t have to confront the disastrous implications border walls have for wildlife and communities.

And based on recently introduced legislation, the border-security industry may not have to consider the human and environmental costs of the deployment of radio towers, motion sensors, cameras or other gadgetry, either. Though the digital wall is often touted as an environmentally amenable solution, fortifications to the existing network of towers, sensors, drones and cameras will have clear impacts on ecosystems and wilderness areas, especially if laws are waived to expedite their deployment.

Much of this digital wall is already in place, officials at the expo explain, and with a seemingly bottomless border-security slush fund, it’s rapidly becoming more powerful. Cameras can detect motion from seven miles away, differentiating between human and animal movement. Facial recognition technology can rapidly tell agents who’s in a vehicle traveling 100 miles per hour, all from a split-second snapshot. The virtual surveillance possibilities are almost limitless.

Throughout the expo, far more attention is given to the development of a tactical network of technology than to border walls. One official notes that more than 650 miles of existing border barriers already exist, built in high-traffic urban areas and travel corridors where, from a tactical perspective, these barriers are most effective. Border-security officials are tacticians; it makes sense that the strategy put forth at the expo is one of sophisticated tactical deployment. The wall, on the other hand, is born from a political rather than tactical mindset. It seems that everyone in the conference hall is well aware of this fact.

As day two at the expo begins, breakout panels address the fentanyl epidemic, the changing supply routes of drugs coming into the country and the transnational criminal organizations working to undermine border security. Each of these presentations paints a grave picture of threats streaming into the country. Metaphors frequently compare the arrival of people, drugs and even religious ideologies to water. Migrants “flood” across our borders. Drugs “pour” onto our streets. We must “stem the tide” of refugees before we are overrun. According to the forecast given at the expo, it feels as though a cyclone is enveloping the country, and the foreign seas of contraband, disease and criminality are lapping at our feet.

border communications vehicle — Photo: Laiken Jordahl

What expo presenters fail to mention is the fact that apprehensions on the southwestern border are actually at a 46-year low. In 2017 Customs and Border Protection apprehended fewer undocumented immigrants on the border than any year since 1971. In fact, since 2015 — well before President Trump was elected — more undocumented Mexican immigrants have been leaving the United States than coming in. As U.S. Representative Ron Kind said last year, “to build a wall now would be locking them in this country.”

Under the Trump doctrine of nativism and deregulation, the border-security industry is poised to win big. And with an annual market valuation reaching upwards of $600 billion, a blank check from the federal government, and little oversight or accountability, it doesn’t matter that our country is no longer in an immigration crisis. There is money to be made.

For the border security industry, the stars have aligned — this truly is an era of insurmountable opportunity.

Livestock Grazing on Public Lands: The Perils of “Multiple Use”

A new book offers insight into how our public lands were created — and what that means as we fight to protect them today and in the future.

“Through interpretation, understanding; through understanding, appreciation; through appreciation, protection.” —Anonymous, U.S. National Park Service administrative manual

Nine of 12 members of the congressionally mandated National Parks System Advisory Board resigned in late January over their inability to obtain a meeting with current Interior Secretary, Ryan Zinke, the former Navy SEAL and U.S. congressman who has professed, “I’m a Teddy Roosevelt guy!” and “No one loves public lands more than I do.” In the resignation letter, co-signed by eight other advisers, former Alaska governor Tony Knowles wrote, “I have a profound concern that the mission of stewardship, protection, and advancement of our National Parks has been set aside.”

Previous Interior Secretary Sally Jewell noted in a recent NPR interview that this administration has launched an “all-out attack on public lands.” It’s hard to view the actions of this administration any other way. As Knowles noted in his letter, Zinke has “no interest in continuing the agenda of science, the effect of climate change, pursuing the protection of the ecosystem.”

Indeed President Donald Trump has made it clear that the fox is guarding the henhouse, and fossil-fuel industries reign supreme. Step one was to hire hatchetmen such as Zinke and others who have spent their careers undermining environmental regulation in order to rollback federal protections for human and environmental health, and thereby support extractive industries.

Given the president’s unprecedented attack on the people’s lands and the environment, as well as the ever-unfolding escapades of Cliven Bundy and his ilk and Trump’s desire to build the ecological disaster that is “the wall,” one can learn a lot from the recent book by journalist Stephen Nash. Nash’s Grand Canyon for Sale (University of California Press, 2017) is a love story about what was, is, and should be our number-one focus on conservation on U.S. federal lands, especially national parks, monuments, wildlife refuges and other places. Nash’s work is about not only sense of place and the need to prioritize conservation above other interests but also the degradation of the people’s lands and how they are routinely trampled as private interests seek to control those lands and work in concert with politicians to make it happen.

The hands of federal agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Service and Parks Service were tied long before Trump took office. These agencies have the ability to prioritize science and the conservation of healthy plants, animals and lands, but that is not happening, to the detriment of ecosystems. As Nash makes abundantly clear, America’s greatest invention — national parks — and other federal lands are under attack by developers, cattle ranchers, introduced and other invasive plant and animal species, tourists and climate change. Using Grand Canyon National Park and surrounding federal lands as his case study, Nash offers each chapter as a vignette looking at topics affecting the ability of our national parks and our public/federal lands to thrive.

Nearly one-fourth of the book adroitly describes the perils associated with cattle grazing on federal lands and the need to establish a “national cow conversation.” Such dialogue is needed, as cattle — an invasive, non-native species to North America — are one of the biggest environmental stressors after climate change. Overgrazing is simply “grazing” and like large-scale dam projects, such as the nefarious Glen Canyon Dam, it has had dramatic and negative impacts on plant and animal life in the Grand Canyon and much of the Southwest.

Huge swaths of federal land are grazed. In fact a majority of Bureau-controlled lands are grazed. The only reasonable conclusion from the evidence presented by Nash is that “multiple use” is not likely always possible, and should not be the standard under which we decide what activities to support in our parks and other federal lands. Some uses are incompatible with natural ecosystems. We should forbid special interests such as mining, oil and gas extraction, energy generation, and sheep and cattle ranching from operating on federal lands. (If any environmentalist reading this review still doubts the collective impact cattle ranching has on natural ecosystems or the need to adopt a plants-only diet, I challenge you to read page 122.)

According to the language in the Organic Act of 1916, which created the National Park Service, “The service thus established shall promote and regulate the use of the Federal areas known as national parks, monuments, and reservations.” Furthermore, the “purpose” of these federal lands “is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.” The goal is sustainability, not ranching, oil and gas extraction, etc., for as Theodore Roosevelt once put it when describing the Grand Canyon: “Leave it as it is. You cannot improve on it.”

The scale of the constant intrusions into the parks and federal lands by ranchers, business owners and politicians should be unsettling to everyone. Some of the wealthiest Americans and private international corporations — including David and Charles Koch, Stanley Kroenke, the descendants of W. Barron Hilton, and others — are essentially on the federal dole and benefit from the beauty of cheap grazing leases, resulting in yearly deficits to the taxpayers. If we stopped private grazing on Bureau and Forest Service lands, American citizens would save $50 to $125 million a year. In fact, we could likely pay the ranchers to stop ranching and still come out ahead.

The bottom line is that “federal lands” are our lands, not the private playgrounds for the rich and well connected. Nash shares the words of Freeman Tilden, the man who worked with the National Park Service to protect public lands: “The national parks are not in the least degree the special property of those who happen to live near them. They are national domain.” Continued Tilden, “Yellowstone and Yosemite belong as much to the citizens of Maine as to those of Wyoming and California; Isle Royale to the New Mexican as much as to the people of Michigan.”

Nash’s book is missing indigenous voices. They were dispossessed of these lands first, oftentimes by the U.S. military, Mormons and businessmen working side-by-side. Their voices need to be foregrounded in the narrative. However, my small critique in no way detracts from the success of the book, nor its more-important-than-ever message. Nash is excellent at providing a broad outlook — the big picture on every issue and topic. Although the obvious focus of the book is the Grand Canyon, the aim is much larger and makes an even more significant point about all federal lands and all national parks, monuments and refuges everywhere in the United States.

Stephen Nash’s book is important and strong medicine, chock-a-block with important insights and suggestions. His comments and research cover, for example, entrance fees, the failure of “multiple use,” cattle ranching, politics, economics, dams, coal-fired power plants, ecological restoration, including reseeding with native species, and increased inspection of goods and agricultural products arriving in our nation’s ports. He highlights the need for substantially more money in historically cash-strapped federal land-based agencies, and, most significantly, the need for citizens to not only educate themselves about what is happening to our federal lands but also to do something about it.

In the context of Trump-era threats to parks, other federal lands, and other nature infrastructure, it is important to get outraged, to do something, and to reprioritize sustainability and conservation now. As Nash wrote, “These natural systems are unraveling quickly. We need to see the protection of all public lands as the potential salvation for the parks… National parks…need powerful and consistent political support, loudly expressed.” Lend your voice to the effort. Make America the world leader of conservation of public lands again.

The opinions expressed above are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Revelator, the Center for Biological Diversity or their employees.

The Biofuel Bomb Will Devastate Nature

Growing palm oil for use in food is already destroying habitats and causing extinctions. Using it for biofuel will make things even worse.

Malaysia and Indonesia are massive producers of palm oil, much of which is exported overseas.

Oil palm is not only the biggest direct driver of deforestation and peat-swamp destruction in these nations but is a growing forest-killer elsewhere in the tropics — often in mega-diversity areas such as New Guinea, Equatorial Africa and Latin America.

Native forests and peat swamps in the tropics have remarkable biodiversity and are massive stores of carbon — the destruction of which spews out billions of tonnes of greenhouse-gas emissions each year.

Growers Love to Clear Native Forests

Those investing in oil palm love to find unoccupied, intact forests for their plantations. They don’t have to worry about local residents kicking up a fuss about losing their land, and the valuable timber in the forest can be used to help offset the costs of plantation production.

No wonder that vast areas of native forests are being mowed down or burned for oil palm plantations. As one example, in Terengganu state in Peninsular Malaysia, the government is about to allow a native forest reserve of 4,500 hectares (11,300 acres) to be destroyed for oil palm plantations.

The Malaysian Nature Society says that in just five years, from 2010 to 2015, more than 200,000 hectares (500,000 acres) of native forest has been cleared in Peninsular Malaysia, mostly for oil palm and exotic-rubber plantations.

Demand Set to Skyrocket

And now a new report by the respected Rainforest Foundation Norway suggests that oil palm could become a far bigger driver of deforestation in places like Indonesia and Malaysia.

This is because the global demand for oil palm is expected to grow six-fold by the year 2030, thanks to its rising use to create transport fuel, which is being spurred in part by alarming policy changes in China, Indonesia and the aviation sector.

And this is despite clear evidence that oil palm is one of the worst feed-stocks for producing biodiesel because of the exceptionally high environmental costs — to biodiversity and our climate — as well as to local landowners displaced by the big plantation companies.

Backlash Ahead?

It’s for this reason that the European Union is planning to completely phase out imports of oil palm from Indonesia and Malaysia for biofuel production, as of 2021 — a move that is causing both producer nations to howl in protest.

This kind of backlash has been a long time coming — and let’s hope that pending counter-moves by China and Indonesia don’t offset the courageous E.U. ban.

Originally published by Alert-Conservation. Reprinted with permission.

14 Environmental Programs Eliminated in Trump’s Budget Proposal

Trump’s proposed budget wipes out funding for numerous programs devoted to climate change, public lands and sustainable energy.

President Trump released his proposed federal budget for 2019 on Monday, and in the process pushed for the complete elimination of more than a dozen key environmental programs. These include, but are not limited to, areas of the government focusing on climate change, public lands and energy efficiency.

Of course, these fully eliminated programs are just the tip of the iceberg. Trump’s proposal also drastically slashes the budgets of the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other agencies critical to a sustainable future.

The impact of proposed budget cuts on the EPA and other agencies, if passed, will be dramatic, but many operations will probably manage to limp on. That may not be so with the 14 programs Trump has proposed eliminating altogether:

The Department of Energy’s Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) program ($305 million), which supports the development of sustainable energy. Trump’s proposal to eliminate this program comes just a few weeks before ARPA-E’s 2018 Energy Innovation Summit and on the very day that proposals were due for its latest round of funding.
The Global Climate Change Initiative, a joint operation of the Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development ($160 million). The budget proposal says this is “consistent with the President’s plan to withdraw from the Paris Agreement on climate change.”
The popular and effective Energy Star Program ($66 million), which has helped to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by at least 8 million metric tons. The Trump budget says this is not part of the EPA’s core mission (even though the program is actually co-managed by the Department of Energy) and “can be implemented by the private sector.”
The Environmental Protection Agency’s categorical grants ($1.066 billion), which provides states with “funds to implement the various water, air, waste, pesticides and toxic substances programs.”
The Department of Agriculture’s little-known but effective Rural Business and Cooperative Service ($103 million). Among the service’s programs are tools to help rural residents and businesses develop sustainable renewable-energy systems. As the service’s administrator told me in 2016, their Rural Energy for America grant program had helped to finance and install so many renewable energy systems it was “the equivalent to removing more than a million cars from the road annually.”
The Economic Development Administration ($266 million). The program provides federal grants for local economic growth. One of the administration’s most recent grants was $2.1 million to help provide sustainable water for businesses in Michigan.
The U.S. Forest Service’s budget for land acquisition ($56 million). The budget points out that the Forest Service already owns about 30 percent of federally owned public lands and blames the cuts on the need to maintain the land we already own.
Many grant and education programs offered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, including Sea Grant; the National Estuarine Research Reserve System; Coastal Zone Management Grants; the Office of Education; and the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund ($273 million).
The Weatherization Assistance Program, which helps low-income families increase the energy efficiency of their homes. The program supports 8,500 jobs. Trump’s budget also wipes out the State Energy Program, which provides funding and technical assistance for projects to reduce energy waste. (No budget proposal attached dollar value to either of these programs.)
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program ($3.39 billion). The budget request blames this on “fraud and abuse,” not the high cost of heating fuel.
The Abandoned Mine Land Grants program ($105 million), which helps clean and redevelop former coal mines — a program paid for by coal-mine operators.
The Heritage Partnership Program ($20 million), which commemorates, conserves and promotes “areas that include important natural, scenic, historic, cultural, and recreational resources.”
The Chemical Safety Board ($11 million), which investigates accidents at chemical facilities and has pushed for greater regulation of the chemical industry.

On top of all of this, the budget also seeks to eliminate numerous programs for education, literacy and the arts — all of which have clear connections to improving the public’s understanding of environmental issues.

Of course, so far this is just all just proposed. The budget still has a long way to go before anything’s official, and many of these programs and agencies could survive to fight another day, but what we’re seeing this week clearly encapsulates the administration’s priorities.

The Surprising Ways Tigers Benefit Farmers and Livestock Owners

A new study finds that the often-feared big cats actually help keep crops and domesticated animals safe from other threats.

Farmers and livestock owners tend not to like living too close to large predators, but maybe that’s something they should reconsider. New research finds that the presence of nearby tigers (Panthera tigris) actually benefits farming communities in some pretty surprising ways.

According to a paper published last week in the journal Biological Conservation, tigers tend to live in the deepest, most pristine habitats they can find. In Bhutan, where the study was conducted, tigers then push two other predator species — leopards (Panthera pardus) and dholes (Cuon alpinus) — to the edge of those habitats, where they’re closer to human villages and agricultural areas.

This doesn’t put people or livestock at risk, though. Instead, the leopards and dholes (a type of wild dog) end up preying on the smaller herbivores such as wild pigs (Sus scrofa) that would otherwise be eating farmers’ crops. The crops end up doing better, as do the farmers.

Livestock also fared well, but in a different way. The domesticated animals raised by pastoralists in Bhutan tend to range relatively unattended and often graze in the forests surrounding villages. Tigers prey on livestock in the forests, but there aren’t that many tigers left in the area. The primary predators for the livestock, then, would be leopards and dholes, but they have been pushed out of the forests toward cropland where there are fewer livestock animals for them to eat. As a result, total livestock losses go down when tigers are on the landscape.

A dhole with prey. Photo: Dhruvaraj S (CC BY 2.0)

“Livestock and crop losses are two big issues faced by the agro-pastoralists in Bhutan,” says lead author Phuntsho Thinley, principal research officer with the Ugyen Wangchuck Institute for Conservation and Environment Research in Bhutan. “I wanted to study the core underlying causes of the issues in order to devise pragmatic solutions.”

The paper, which notes a history of predator persecution in Bhutan, recommends promoting apex predators for the ecological services they provide. Thinley and his collaborators calculate that the presence of a tiger would reduce so much herbivore crop damage it would be like putting an extra $450 a year in each family’s pockets. Livestock losses would also be reduced by an average of 2.4 animals per farm, the equivalent of saving $1,120 a year. Considering the per capita income of Bhutan is just about $2,200, that’s a potential economic windfall — all thanks to tigers.

Thinley says the results have been well received in Bhutan. He’s communicated his findings to local farmers and been interviewed on national TV. “Some of my scientific recommendations will also be incorporated into the government policy and environmental conservation plans,” he says.

The findings could have value elsewhere. “This is a really important paper and they’ve found something new that could be applicable to other areas,” says John Goodrich, senior tiger program director for Panthera, the global wild-cat conservation organization, who was not associated with the study.

For one thing, it could help teach people not to always blame tigers for livestock losses. “In my experience, every time something gets killed, it all gets blamed on tigers,” he says. With only about 3,800 wild tigers left in the world, reducing the number of tigers killed in retaliation for real or perceived livestock losses is critically important.

The study could also provide an incentive to use fewer snares around crops, where they’re used to catch herbivores but also capture anything else that wanders by. “Snares are indiscriminate,” says Goodrich. “They’re legal in a lot of places, like in Sumatra. Snares kill tigers’ prey, but tigers are also getting caught. It’s a huge problem.”

Goodrich notes that Sumatra doesn’t have leopards or wandering livestock as they do in Bhutan, so the same dynamic may not be at play there, but he sees value from this study in countries such as Nepal and India. “There you have high densities of tigers, high densities of livestock, and a lot of livestock depredation and issues with crop depredation,” he says. “So this could be a really useful tool in other places.”

Thinley, meanwhile, thinks the study could be replicated with other species, such as lions and cheetahs in Africa and wolves and coyotes in the United States. “I feel that the wildlife conservationists and researchers should follow suit,” he says, “particularly to highlight the ecological roles of wild animals to strongly justify their conservation rather than selling the vague idea of general conservation significance, which I think general people are not easily understanding and buying.”

Previously in The Revelator:

Tinder Talks Tough on Tigers

Drill, Baby, Drill: The U.S. Added 38 Percent More Oil and Gas Rigs Last Year

Burn, baby, burn: Experts express fear about the enormous climate impact of this boom in new fossil fuel development.

The number of oil and gas rigs in the United States has increased an astonishing 38 percent over the past year. That’s according to S&P Global Platts Analytics, which reported this week that the country had 1,070 rigs at the end of January, up from just 773 a year earlier.

Experts expressed fear that all of this new development does not bode well for the planet. “This will have a very significant climate impact,” says Romany Webb, climate law fellow with the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. “The oil and gas industry is a huge source of methane, which is a really potent greenhouse gas. And then on top of that you also have the carbon dioxide emissions from the combustion of this oil and gas. So this is very concerning from a climate perspective.”

Webb links the increase in drilling, in part, to the recent rise in prices for crude oil and natural gas. “Oil is now above $60 a barrel, which is what the industry always said that they needed to ramp up production,” she says.

Experts also connect the boom to the policies of the Trump administration, which has prioritized the extraction of oil, natural gas and coal over the development of renewable energies even as the planet continues to warm. “That the hottest years in human history coincide with a dramatic increase in U.S. drilling for oil and gas is a reminder of what a rogue nation we now live in,” says noted environmentalist Bill McKibben.

The Boom

The extraction boom took place nationwide, with all but one of S&P’s reporting regions (see below) gaining new rigs. The fastest growth occurred in two states in the natural gas-rich Permian Basin: Texas gained 141 rigs, while New Mexico added 43. S&P also noted that extraction companies are moving outside the Permian Basin, which, according to senior analyst Trey Cowan, indicates “future growth being led from other regions in the months ahead.”

The analysis includes rigs located on U.S. land, as well as in inland waters and the Gulf of Mexico.

	Jan 2017	Jan 2018	Variance Year over Year (YOY)	YOY % Variance
Colorado	30	34	4	13%
Louisiana	33	52	19	58%
New Mexico	40	83	43	108%
North Dakota	36	50	14	39%
Oklahoma	106	128	22	21%
Texas	367	508	141	38%
Rest of U.S. Land	121	172	51	42%
U.S. Land Subtotal	733	1,027	294	40%
U.S. Inland Waters	6	5	-1	-17%
U.S. Gulf of Mexico	34	38	4	12%
U.S. Inland and Gulf of Mexico	40	43	3	8%
Total U.S. Rig Count	773	1,070	+297	38%

Source: S&P Global Platts Analytics

It doesn’t look like this will slow down any time soon. The number of rigs has already increased in the few days since January ended. The weekly Platts RigData Locations & Operators Report for Feb. 5 reveals that there are now three additional rigs in operation, for a total of 1,073, with 61 more facilities “waiting to spud” (industry terminology for getting ready to start drilling).

The Future: More Drilling, More Impact

S&P released its data the same day the U.S. Energy Information Administration issued its annual Energy Outlook report for 2018, which projects U.S. oil production will soar past 11 million barrels a day by the end of this year.

The report also found that natural gas use in this country will increase at an annual rate of 0.8 percent through the year 2050. The use of wind and solar energies is also projected to increase at a similar rate. Coal and oil are expected to decline, that won’t be enough to offset the increase in emissions caused by the use of natural gas. The Energy Information Administration predicts that the U.S. carbon footprint will dip slightly over the next few years and then increase by mid-century.

The impact won’t just occur in the United States, as the agency found that the United States will become a net energy exporter by the year 2022, pushing an additional rise in emissions worldwide. As Inside Climate News put it, “the U.S. would almost single-handedly exhaust the whole world’s carbon budget by midcentury.”

The total effect of this mad rush to drill may be felt for even longer than that. “Our short-term folly will be felt for tens of thousands of years in the geologic record,” says McKibben.

Previously in The Revelator:

Trump’s Offshore Oil Plan: Like Nothing the Country Has Ever Seen

Mountain Bikes Do Not Belong in Federal Wilderness

A Republican bill threatens to open up federal wilderness areas to mountain biking — and in the process threatens the 1964 Wilderness Act.

House Republicans recently advanced a bill allowing mountain biking in federal wilderness areas, where they’ve been banned for decades. The move dredges up a long-resolved debate at a time when our public lands face more pressing threats, including shrinking monuments, increased drilling, climate change and crippling wildfire costs. On top of this, the bill — which is really about more than mountain bikes — threatens the 1964 Wilderness Act, one of America’s bedrock conservation laws. It deserves strong opposition.

The bill, H.R. 1349, was introduced by Representative Tom McClintock (R-Calif.). It gained five Republican cosponsors and in December sailed through the Republican-controlled House Natural Resources Committee. It now awaits a House vote.

McClintock claims introducing biking into wilderness “would restore the original intent of the Wilderness Act.” While the statement lacks legal or historical merit, it does echo a fringe group out of California called the Sustainable Trails Coalition, which appears intent on opening the Pacific Crest Trail and other protected areas to biking. Their effort is opposed by other groups, including the Pacific Crest Trail Association and the International Mountain Biking Association.

No legal argument supports biking in wilderness. Unambiguously, the 1964 Wilderness Act states there shall be no motorized vehicles and “no other form of mechanical transport” in wilderness. Yet some claim “mechanical transport” somehow exempts bicycles, or unintentionally excluded a sport that emerged after the law. They tout an early Forest Service misinterpretation that initially allowed bicycles in wilderness but was corrected more than 30 years ago. They omit the fact that other agencies never adopted the Forest Service misinterpretation.

The claims ignore the historical context and foresight of the Wilderness Act. We should remember that the law grew from a half-century of public-lands battles fought by America’s most influential conservation thinkers, including Aldo Leopold, Bob Marshall, and Olaus and Mardy Murie. Theirs was a multigenerational struggle to safeguard vestiges of the public lands from increasing population and technology.

The technology part is important. The framers of the Wilderness Act knew human ingenuity was not petering out in 1964 — they lived in an era of fantastic invention. Forms of transport tested at the time included jetpacks, gliders, aerocycles and various new wagons, boats and bicycles. That the law anticipated and banned future forms of mechanical transport is indisputable.

But also consider the reasoning behind the concern. It was most concisely expressed by the bill’s principal author, Howard Zahniser. In 1956, as the Wilderness Act began its eight-year journey into law, he defined wilderness as a place where we stand without the “mechanisms that make us immediate masters over our environment.”

Zahniser was a Thoreauvian pacifist deeply troubled by the Holocaust, atomic warfare and other 20th century crises. In designated wilderness, he saw a suite of biophysical and social attributes that carried the potential to make us better people. But to fulfill its promise in modern times, by offering opportunities for raw challenge, humility and solitude, wilderness had to remain a place of human restraint.

Zahniser’s writings conveyed uniquely American ideas on nature that evolved over 150 years. They reflected the painter George Catlin camped on the Missouri frontier; Henry David Thoreau facing “only the essential facts of life” alongside Walden Pond; John Muir scaling the high Sierras in pursuit of hidden glaciers; Aldo Leopold on horseback in the great expanse of the Gila; and Bob Marshall hiking….well, everywhere. Marshall trekked through regions from the Adirondacks to the Brooks Range and, like Leopold, crafted early Forest Service rules on wilderness areas, including their core value as undeveloped landscapes accessed without motors and with “no possibility of conveyance by any mechanical means.” Marshall then helped form The Wilderness Society in 1935 to guard those ideals in an increasingly mechanized age, and the group eventually led the movement for legislated wilderness.

Other women and men contributed, too, so that when Zahniser wrote the words that became the law, the American notion of wilderness was solidly a place to experience by primitive means — where visitors “depend exclusively on [their] own effort for survival,” as Marshall put it. Added to ecological benefits, goals included preserving the remoteness and challenge that forged the American character and providing solitude, for inspiration, contemplation and renewal. Codifying the notion was debated for nearly a decade, and the Act eventually passed Congress with almost unanimous consent.

So we know biking has no legal place in wilderness and that it defies the intent of the Wilderness Act. But what harm would it actually do to modern wilderness areas? Most broadly, but least tangibly, it would undermine the sanctity of wilderness as a place we go unaided by machines, where person and place intimately meet. More concretely, mechanical transport would erode remoteness and solitude, the resources protected by law and sought by many wilderness visitors. It would force those seeking the “primitive” types of recreation described by the law, including hunters, packers and others, into even smaller enclaves than available today.

There’s a political cost, too. Allowing biking and other wheeled access as described in H.R. 1349 fulfills a long-held Republican desire to crack open Wilderness Act protections, usually on behalf of logging, drilling, mining or motorized recreation. Allowing biking provides these interests with a convenient precedent.

Those pressing for bikes in wilderness ignore all this. Instead they too often reduce the focus to issues of trail erosion, where they front overly rosy claims. Or they conflate the ban on bikes with a ban on certain people. This ploy stirs emotion but undercuts serious public-lands discourse. Yet McClintock, the Sustainable Trails Coalition and others use the trick. A Bike Magazine video even casts bikes in wilderness as a civil-rights issue. That’s an affront to anyone who has worked for voting rights, fair housing, protection against hate crimes or other actual civil rights.

Advocates also oversimplify prohibitions on bikes in wilderness study areas, calling them overreach by conservationists or the feds. But such bans are essential to the purpose of these study areas, which must be carefully managed to preserve their eligibility as wilderness pending congressional review. Once bikes, snowmobiles or other forms of transport are established, the purpose of a study area is undone.

And let’s not be distracted by the inclusion of wheelchair access in McClintock’s bill. The Americans with Disabilities Act already unequivocally assures wheelchair access to wilderness, a clarification representing the only time in over a half-century that the Wilderness Act was amended.

Lastly, consider the issue’s scale. The wilderness system is limited to roughly 53 million acres outside Alaska. Smaller than Colorado, that portion is scattered across 43 states. And while most of the land is in the West, most of it is also rugged and unbikable. Meanwhile hundreds of millions of acres remain open to biking.

Talk about wanting the last pork chop.

In the end McClintock’s bill caters to a small group of bike enthusiasts apparently out of touch with the intent of federal wilderness. But it threatens real harm by unraveling protections and pitting recreationists against each other at a time when public lands need our unified support. We should join the dozens of conservation groups opposing the measure, then get back to the real work of defending our lands.

The opinions expressed above are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Revelator, the Center for Biological Diversity or their employees.

How Colleges Can Attract More Minority Students to Environmental Studies and Careers

Universities should hire diverse professors and teach classes that appeal to a broad group of students.

Generalizations can be misleading when it comes to perceptions about race. Minority students, troublingly, are often perceived as not having the educational background necessary to work in environmental careers, or as not having a strong environmental identity. But a recently published study polled white, black and other minority students on three different campuses and found they had comparable educational chops, strongly identified themselves as environmentalists and conservationists, and were just as interested as non-minorities in working in environmental organizations, both governmental and private.

The study — conducted by Dorceta Taylor, the director of diversity, equity and inclusion at the University of Michigan and a professor at its School for Environment and Sustainability, as well as a lifelong environmental justice advocate — is significant because the percentage of minorities in the field is still low, despite the diversity-increasing steps that have been taken. Taylor’s findings show what needs to be done to fix the imbalance.

The roots of Taylor’s work date back to 1983, when she first arrived at Yale University’s School of Forestry for her graduate degree. At the time she was only the second African American woman to be admitted to that particular school. In her environment classes, she found she was the token black person among Caucasian peers. This struck her as unusual, given the minorities she had seen in other science classes, so she asked her professor about it. He told her black students weren’t interested in the environment.

She began looking into it and discovered that, in reality, black students in the United States were just as interested in the environment as anyone else, yet few took up environmental studies. This hadn’t been the case when she was growing up in Jamaica, where she and her peers had always been aware of, and concerned about, the environment. The disparity in enrollment in the United States became a subject she dug into as her career progressed. Last fall she published her research paper, which found that minority students do want to pursue green careers, but need to see diversity reflected in both the faculty teaching courses and the staff leading environmental organizations. She also found that students want to connect what’s happening in their communities to their studies, so programs need to be tailored better, which is why one-size-fits-all approaches to recruiting minorities won’t work.

Taylor spoke with The Revelator at length about the reasons behind the low numbers of minorities in environmental studies and careers, what’s being done and what more needs to be done to improve the situation.

Nagappan: Is it still true that not many people of color, particularly African Americans, choose to study this field?

Taylor: That’s what people believed back then — that we were not smart enough, or didn’t know enough, or even that we wanted too much money for such jobs. None of this was really true. People of color, including biracial folks, represent about 38 percent of the population, yet we represent only 14 to 16 percent of the staff in environmental organizations. We’ve seen the percentage climb from 2 to 3 percent back in the 1990s, but it’s still low, and we’re still concentrated in the lower ranks of organizations, not leadership roles.

Cost is one factor. These programs of study tend to be expensive and so they’re more populated by middle- and upper-middle-class students. Without a lot of scholarship money, the programs are out of reach for many lower-income minority students.

Second, it’s the culture. The programs are not very inclusive, so even if someone can afford it, they may start to feel isolated very quickly.

Third, the faculty and staff in these programs lack diversity, so students don’t see themselves reflected in the faculty. If there are no faculty members of color, it leads to more isolation for minority students.

Nagappan: What can colleges do to correct this?

Taylor: A lot of students of color want to do environmental justice programs because they want to connect what they see with what they study. Like Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico, when it happens in places populated by blacks and browns, the response is slow. They start to see a class and race dimension to environmental problems and how they’re dealt with.

So these environmental justice courses become gateway courses, and when students see how this relates back to what is happening in the community, they want to take these programs. So we need more of these programs that are relevant and will engage a diverse group of students.

There’s also the curriculum — are they matching the curriculum to the interests of the millennials? Students don’t just want to study hydrology. They also want to connect it to what’s going in places like Flint, Michigan, because they see that as a very critical piece of environment issues. Today’s students are more interested in why water or electricity is shut off in low-income minority neighborhoods but not in upper-crust white areas. So the programs need to adapt and bring these connections in to engage a wider range of students.

Finally, there are a lot of colleges around the country that train students of color in these fields, so if colleges are attuned to diversity they can find and recruit minority faculty in environmental studies.

Nagappan: What else can colleges do to improve recruitment for these courses?

Taylor: The student body is very diverse, so the curriculum has to broaden out and bring in a wider range of case studies and research. And it’s important to make this kind of education accessible to a wider range of people, both financially and physically. It shouldn’t just be in elite universities. There should be more of these programs in community colleges, in online learning and in countries outside the U.S. We should also start teaching about it in kindergarten.

There are many public schools in low-income neighborhoods where there are no programs teaching about the environment, so they get to college with no training or knowledge from school, unlike students from better neighborhoods. That puts them at a disadvantage for enrolling in environmental courses, and majoring in it will be hard if they can’t take a course until their junior year.

Nagappan: What are some programs that are helping address this situation?

Taylor: There are a growing number of diversity programs. I run two such programs. The Doris Duke Conservation Scholars Program provides 40 internships on several campuses to low-income, minority, rural college students from all over the country. We provide two summers of internship, with a good stipend, travel expenses, room and board. Paid internships are a great way in which low-income minorities can get into this field. Many other programs offer unpaid internships or volunteering opportunities, which are more suited to upper middle class students.

The second program I run is for graduate students. It’s expensive to go to grad school, and spending the summer training as volunteers will be hard, so our graduate fellowship is offered to students all over the country. The idea is to attract gifted students of color to join these programs. So if we are going after top talent, why would you expect them to work for free or very little?

Nagappan: How will this translate to minorities taking up jobs not just in environment advocacy organizations, but also within the government, scientific community and industry?

Taylor: Both these programs are still very new, just two years old. Our graduate students have all found jobs as a result of the internship program, and they’ve gone into the environmental field. Other schools have several programs, and they’ve also found that their students went into the environmental field for their jobs. With these robust programs, we’re hoping more will take up jobs in this field.

Building a nurturing environment is a critical piece in recruiting students of color. They like being able to fit in and feel comfortable with the student body and faculty.

With the changes in curriculum and diversity in faculty that need to happen, it will take time to translate this into more minorities taking up this field — for word to get out among the community, for people to say, go to this school or this organization. We’ve invested centuries in homogeneity. Why do we think heterogeneity will come overnight?

Previously in The Revelator:

Environmental Justice Means Desegregating the Environmental Movement

Extinction Ink

With his Holocene Project tattoos, artist J. Trip immortalizes endangered species on the bodies of wildlife-loving clients.

“I tattoo,” says artist J. Trip. “That’s what I do.”

A second-generation tattooer, Trip brings something unique to his creations. From his chair at Funhouse Tattoo: International Guesthouse in San Diego, Trip turns his customers’ biceps, shoulders, knees and backs into stunning visualizations of extinct and endangered species.

Trip has been creating the tattoos of what he calls the Holocene Project for a few years now. He sketched out his first creation a few hours after seeing the documentary Racing Extinction. “I’ve always loved nature,” he says. “So when I saw Racing Extinction, it inspired me to do even more research into what we humans are doing to our planet. It also made me decide to figure out more ways to open eyes. The Holocene Project is the culmination of those thought processes.”

extinction tattoos — Photo courtesy J. Trip

Trip’s flesh-and-ink images depict species from all over the planet, but they all bear one common design element. Each tattooed animal is accompanied by the image of an hourglass, counting down the species’ time left on Earth. For some, like the giant panda, the hourglass is mostly full. For others, like the now-extinct western black rhino, the sands of time have run out and the hourglass is left empty.

extinction tattoo sloth — Photo courtesy J. Trip

It’s the hourglasses that often draw Trip’s customers’ attention. “I have a few designs for pieces that I haven’t tattooed yet hanging around my workspace,” he says. “People ask about them and then I get to explain the project.”

Once a customer expresses interest in wearing an endangered species on their body, Trip starts searching for inspirational images. He looks for each species’ most defining traits, thinks about the body part where the tattoo will go, and then goes about designing the art. “I have to think about how to best incorporate the hourglass and the environment, without overpowering either the featured species or the body part,” he says. “By the time the design is correct, I’ve studied every inch and every detail that makes the thing what it is. I’ve imagined why they are as they are, and the function they serve in their worlds.”

As with any good tattoo, the process takes a while, but the resulting images are both stunning works of art and lasting conversation-starters. “By the time I’m done tattooing it, mostly I’m just grateful to the client,” Trip says. “I’m grateful for the person who thought enough of the creature, of my work, and of the project to dedicate a portion of themselves and their bodies. It’s extremely humbling.”

Trip hasn’t kept an exact count, but he figures he’s done a few dozen Holocene Project tattoos at this point. He completed many of them while he and his wife spent a year driving across the country in a renovated van — complete with solar-powered fridge and composting toilet — with more customers finding him since they settled in San Diego, either by coming into his studio or through seeing his Instagram account. “One guy drove all the way from Utah to get a green sea turtle,” Trip says.

extinction tattoo sea turtle — Photo courtesy J. Trip

Tattooing endangered species is an emotional experience for both artist and client, but Trip says the effort is worth it. “It’s been amazing, and I’m looking forward to what I’m lucky enough to be asked to do next,” he says.

At Least 197 Eco-Defenders Murdered in 2017

Global Witness calls the murders part of “the ruthless scramble for natural wealth.”

At least 197 environmental activists and eco-defenders around the world were murdered in 2017 — nearly four deaths per week, according to a shocking new report from Global Witness and The Guardian newspaper.

The deaths included farmers murdered by soldiers while defending their ancestral lands from coffee plantations in the Philippines; an indigenous leader allegedly killed by rebels in Colombia; and wildlife rangers slain by poachers in multiple countries. One of the most infamous cases was the January 15, 2017 murder of Isidro Baldenegro López, an indigenous activist in Mexico who had earlier won the Goldman Environmental Prize for standing up to illegal logging.

Mexico is now the fourth most dangerous countries for land-defenders, with 15 murders in 2017, according to Global Witness. Latin America overall was considered the deadliest part of the world for activists. Brazil had the highest number of murders, 46, followed by Colombia with 42. The Philippines was a close third with 41 reported homicides.

Agribusiness and mining were linked to 60 percent of 2017’s deaths.

“Until companies, investors and governments genuinely include communities in decisions around the use of their land and natural resources, the people who dare to speak out will continue to face violence, imprisonment and loss of life,” Rachel Cox, a campaigner for Global Witness, wrote on their website.

In addition to the murders, Global Witness says many activists are intimidated or silenced with death threats, sexual assaults and aggressive lawsuits (the latter of which have become particularly prevalent).

Although the number of activist murders has quadrupled since Global Witness started tracking them in 2002, there is a hint of good news: “Killings have leveled off for the first time in four consecutive years,” Cox wrote. “As the international community sits up and listens to these hidden stories, there is a momentum for renewed pressure on companies and investors to take more responsibility and further scrutinize governments who have allowed those who kill to get away with it.”

Meanwhile, the murders continue in 2018. Last week, three Cambodian rangers and law-enforcement officers were killed just hours after locating an illegal logging camp on the Cambodia-Vietnam border. They are survived by their wives and daughters, the youngest of which is just two and a half months old. And just this weekend Esmond Bradley Martin, an investigator into the illegal ivory trade, was found stabbed to death at his home in Kenya.