The Revelator’s Top 10 Articles of 2017

Stories about Bears Ears, sharks, vaquitas, an extinct bat and the Endangered Species Act resonated with our readers this year.

What a year. 2017 sometimes felt like a nonstop assault on the environment, but it was our job to get the news out there, good and bad.

That meant bringing you stories about everything from sharks and snails to Bears Ears National Monument and beyond. Here they are, our 10 most-read articles for 2017, as clicked by you, our valued readers:

1. Snails Are Going Extinct: Here’s Why That Matters

2. Florida Anglers Are Targeting Endangered Sharks

3. The Last Vaquitas: “I’ve Seen More Dead Than Alive”

4. The Fungus Killing America’s Bats: “Sometimes You’ll See Piles of Dead Bats”

5. Does Trump Really Have the Authority to Shrink National Monuments?

6. Scientists: The Endangered Species Act Needs You

7. Killer Whales Face Killer Toxins

8. Christmas Island Bat, Last Seen in 2009, Confirmed Extinct

9. The Roots of the Antiquities Act? They’re in Bears Ears

10. Rethinking the Big, Bad Wolf

What were your favorites? Did anything you enjoyed reading not make the list? Let us know in the comments. And stay tuned for even more great articles — good news and bad — in the New Year to come.

Reflecting on The Revelator’s First Year

The year of Trump brought challenges, but it also inspired us to seek the truth and find solutions.

This was a year of painful and powerful change.

On Jan. 20 Donald Trump ascended to the U.S. presidency, bringing with him a regressive collection of anti-environmental ideas and a right-wing crew of industry insiders and billionaires to help execute them.

That was a pretty awful day, but I remember watching the inauguration and knowing that I would soon be in a position to help do something about it.

Just three days later the small staff of what would become The Revelator — made up of myself and investigative journalist John Dougherty — reported for duty. Spurred by Trump’s election, the Center for Biological Diversity had set out to create a new kind of independent environmental news site. Our goals were simple and not-so-simple: stand up against the administration and stand for the environment and the species and people who depend on it. It would be a site to promote transparency, to tell stories that other publications were missing and to investigate truths no one else was uncovering.

We didn’t give ourselves an easy task. It took a few months to pull things together, design the website and start our reporting. But once we launched on May 17 we immediately began a journey that took us to some pretty wild places. We covered Trump’s assaults against Bears Ears and other national monuments; the environmental disaster of his proposed border wall; his push to drill for oil off the Atlantic coast; the administration’s attacks on public funding of science; the attempts to dismantle the EPA; and a whole lot more.

All of this work presented some…challenges. From the moment this administration took office, officials either stopped talking to the media or did so only under duress — or with the knowledge that it could cost them their jobs. This isn’t universal, of course. Many people in the government are still incredibly helpful to journalists, but finding these sources becomes harder and harder.

But we pressed on. We talked to the people affected by these proposed changes, as well as the experts who told us how many of them probably won’t stand up in a court of law. We dug into documents to reveal things the administration or tight-lipped corporations weren’t telling us. We looked back at history to show us the potential implications of what’s happening now. And we looked at some possible solutions that could outlast the Trump administration, no matter what they end up doing.

And of course, we looked beyond the world of Trump, with articles about endangered species, climate change, pollution, unsafe oil companies and the Bundy trial. We ran essays and op-eds that challenged readers to consider different approaches. We talked about the books and the arts — vital places to generate new ideas for resilience and resistance. We also started a series of graphic data stories that presented difficult issues in new and interesting ways. I like to think we stood out in our coverage of all of these issues, often tackling stories that no other environmental news sources touched.

Throughout it all we asked tough questions, which remains at the heart of everything we do.

And our readers, thankfully, responded. A few weeks ago we celebrated our first million unique page views, and our daily readership continues to climb. Our articles have been reprinted in nearly a dozen other publications. More and more people are following us on Twitter and Facebook. We received a lot of nice letters — and more than a little bit of hate mail, but that just tells me we’re doing something right.

Of course, we stumbled a bit along the way, as every startup does. Our website had some bugs at first, which took a couple of months to correct. Our lack of name recognition in the early days slowed our ability to talk to sources and to attract top essay-writers, something that’s now turning around. Our attempt at a semi-daily aggregation feature, “The Dose,” didn’t really click, so we rightfully reassigned our resources to bigger and better articles (we still hope to revisit that idea, though). And it took forever to find the time to launch our weekly email newsletter, but that’s chugging along nicely now, with more subscribers joining every day.

There were also some frustrations, but only because we couldn’t do more. A staff our size can only write and publish so much, but we did bring you nearly 180 articles this year, so we’re pretty happy with that.

Next year we’ll do even more. Right now we’re drawing to a close for 2017 — after this past Trump-filled year, we need a bit of a recharge — but we’ll be back the first week of January with renewed vigor, purpose, dedication and hard truths. And maybe a few surprises.

Thanks for reading, and thanks for staying in touch. We look forward to continuing our journey with you in 2018, no matter what challenges we all face.

Nothing to Wheeze At: Air Pollution’s Disproportionate Effect on Poor and Minority Communities

Air pollution is an unevenly distributed issue — how it affects you depends on where you live.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s assessments show that breathing ground-level ozone at levels of just above 0.070 parts per million can cause a range of harmful health effects, including asthma and emphysema.

The effects add up: Air pollution kills tens of thousands of Americans every year and costs the economy over $4 billion.

The damage, however, is not evenly spread. Your exposure to ground-level ozone depends, in no small part, on where you live, and where you live often depends on your economic status. So according to the EPA’s own data — who exactly is America dumping its air pollution burden on?

This map of national ground ozone levels shows a large amount of variation across the country, ranging from safe to hazardous levels. Click on any of the dots signifying monitoring locations to view ozone levels and the demographics of local residents.

The graphic below compares the average American to the average person experiencing different levels of ozone pollution using EPA and census data. Move the slider below the image to explore levels.

The average person experiencing the worst ozone pollution is 11 percent more likely to be a person of color and live in a household with income $7,440 less than the average person being monitored by the EPA overall.

According to this data, the most vulnerable Americans are bearing the brunt of the country’s pollution footprint — of every American’s pollution footprint.

That’s because the ozone and other emissions from a car’s tank of gas don’t just settle where a car travels; drivers are also ultimately responsible for polluting the places fuel was originally extracted, refined and transported — possibly on the other side of the continent.

Too often, that puts the burden of these emissions on racial minorities and low-income families, who disproportionately live near refineries, extraction sites and highways. Research has shown that particulate pollution and ground-level ozone at these types of locations increase the risk of death, even at levels below the government’s air-quality standards. The American Petroleum Institute, however, dismissed a recent report detailing the increased risk to African Americans of cancer and asthma caused by air pollution by natural gas emissions by suggesting their genetics and other social factors were to blame.

The Trump administration is similarly skeptical of the hazards of air pollution and has attempted to delay and missed deadlines in enforcing an Obama administration regulation to curb ozone pollution — one the largest industrial source of which is the oil and gas industry.

In the face of an apparently uncaring industry and government, narrowing this inequity remains an uphill battle.

Data sources and methods

Ozone data:
Highest reported value of available fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour concentration reported in EPA’s 2016 annual summary data by monitor.
Source
In 2015 the EPA revised the ozone standard to 0.070 ppm using the O3 indicator with 8-hour averaging time and form of annual fourth-highest daily maximum, averaged over 3 years.

Demographic data:
Five demographic criteria were selected from the 2015 American Community Survey Five-year Estimates:
1) Age: median age of total population
2) Income: median household income in the past 12 months in 2015 inflation-adjusted dollars.
3) Educational attainment: percentage of population 25 years and over with an associate’s degree, bachelor’s degree, or graduate or professional degree.
4) Race: percentage of total population reported as black or African American, American Indian and Alaska native, Asian, native Hawaiian or Pacific islander, some other non-white race, or two or more races.
5) Health insurance: percent uninsured of total civilian noninstitutionalized population.
Source

Location averaging:
Zip Code Tabulation Areas (ZCTA) are the geographic unit of study. If more than one air quality monitoring station was present in a single ZCTA, only the station recoding the highest value was retained. Demographic data by ZCTA was then collated by levels of ozone recorded within the ZCTA (0.06 ppm and above, 0.07 ppm and above, 0.08 ppm and above, 0.09 ppm and above). Finally, demographic data were averaged by ozone level category while weighting data by total population of each ZCTA. The ‘average person’ was defined as the average person living in all ZCTAs where all monitoring stations were located.

Data limitations:
The locations of air quality monitoring stations across the country are somewhat arbitrary and do not provide complete national coverage.

These Butterflies Have Lawyers

The National Butterfly Center just filed suit to block Trump’s border wall from being built on its property in Texas.

Don’t mess with Texas butterflies. They have lawyers.

This week attorneys representing the North American Butterfly Association filed a suit against the Trump administration for its plan to build a section of the U.S.-Mexico border wall through a significant portion of the National Butterfly Center in Mission, Texas. The construction plan would cut off the organization’s access “to no less than two-thirds of the Butterfly Center property” just north of the Rio Grande River, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit was officially filed Monday against the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the agencies responsible for building and patrolling the wall.

The filing, provided to The Revelator by the National Butterfly Center, also alleges that “the Agencies and their agents and contractors have entered, damaged and destroyed NABA’s private property without authorization or permission” — details The Revelator uncovered when we originally reported on this story last July. At the time Executive Director Marianna Trevino Wright said crews had chopped down “dozens, perhaps hundreds,” of trees, shrubs and other plants. She captured the damage on video.

As we reported in July, Customs and Border Protection and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers admitted entering the private property but repeatedly denied they had removed any vegetation. After nearly a week of inquiries, Customs officials admitted that the tree-removal had actually taken place.

The unexpected presence of border agents reportedly continues practically to this day. In a phone call on Tuesday, Wright said that a customs agent had been on their property in late November turning visitors away from the area near where the border wall would be built.

That part of their property has been unexpectedly popular lately. “All kinds of folks have been coming here, saying they want to see where the wall is going to go,” Wright says. “People have said they wanted to see this place before the landscape is marred by this atrocity.”

What comes next is unclear. Even though the lawsuit has been filed, Wright says she remains worried about how all of this will play out. She’s also concerned that people will stop paying attention. “I don’t know at what point this becomes old news,” she says. “I think people are getting sort of tired of these crises. I mean, every day it’s some new thing with Trump. People are maybe getting desensitized to all of this. But maybe I’m wrong.”

How Al Gore and 799 New Friends Helped Me to Become a Climate Leader

A three-day event offered me the opportunity to shape future discussion about global warming and its effects.

When it comes to climate change, I really don’t need to believe it because it’s smacking me in the face every day.

But some days aren’t like others. A few months ago I found out that the 35th Climate Reality Training — a brainchild of Vice President Al Gore, launched in his barn in Tennessee in 2006 —was going to take place in Bellevue, Wash., less than two hours from where I live in Gig Harbor. These trainings now happen all over the world.

I’d seen An Inconvenient Truth when it came out, but that was 10 years ago. From what I heard and read since then, I knew we were moving on a steeper trajectory than what some people, including the film, had predicted.

With that in mind, I registered for the three-day training. I wasn’t at all sure what to expect once I got to the Meydenbauer Center, but I soon got the sense I was with “my” people: a lot of others profoundly interested in learning about climate change.

The hall filled with 799 other people from all over the world, of all ages, eager to learn from the vice president and other experts. As we arrived we were assigned to a table, and stayed with that group throughout the training. I was the one there from Gig Harbor, and I did my best to meet people who lived closer to me to stay better connected and supportive of our collective work.

The training was free — there were even snacks and lunch — all supported by profits Vice President Gore made from his books and An Inconvenient Truth.

The days were intense and information-packed. Mr. Gore was our instructor for most of the training. Passionate about climate change, he hosted panel discussions with scientific experts when he wasn’t lecturing himself — as well as health-care experts and people his organization dubbed Climate Leaders, who’d already gone through the training.

We spent the first day and a half learning and the rest of the time finding out how to present what we learned. We were taught to share our own stories, which put me in touch with my own past and present. I’ve been an environmentalist since I was a kid, and do my best to lead a green life. I’m the godmother to a grown man now who has a son of his own and was recently asked to be the godmother of a baby girl my friend adopted; I want these children to inherit a world filled with clean air and water, trees as far as the eye can see, and an ocean filled with more sea life than plastic.

I want them to be surrounded by the beauty of nature and to eat food that isn’t contaminated with pesticides. I want them to live in a world free of fossil fuels that pollute everything. And most of all, I want them to feel that elation when you see a whale breach in the ocean. I want them to see animals in the wild and not tucked away in a zoo or aquarium because there’s no land left for animals to roam free. That’s part of my story.

The training was exciting because Mr. Gore’s latest documentary, An Inconvenient Sequel, was scheduled to be released a few weeks after the event. Some of the slides we’d seen throughout the training came from his documentaries.

The last hour of our training was the most emotional. He shared the “lyric video” for An Inconvenient Sequel with us. I honestly didn’t see anyone who wasn’t crying. If you haven’t seen the film, I strongly encourage you to do so:

The last day of the training was filled with emotion. I so enjoyed being with people who were passionate about saving the planet that I didn’t want to go back home and read the news about people hell-bent on destroying it.

With my training completed, I am now one of 12,500 Climate Leaders throughout the world, and my work is only beginning. The one thing they ask of you after the event is that you perform ten “Acts of Leadership,” which can include giving a talk to a community group, a class, or community leaders. They provide you with slides so you, too, have current, up-to-date information to share.

In the end, I realized I hadn’t really learned anything new about climate change because I’d kept up with the science, but what I did learn was to have hope. If Al Gore can see all he’s seen, know the politics behind it all, and yet still remain hopeful, then I can, too.

I’d encourage everyone to attend a training event if you are able to. You can find schedules and more information at climaterealityproject.org.

You might not believe in climate change, but do us all a favor and at least prepare for it. Your neighbors shouldn’t suffer and first responders shouldn’t have to put their lives at risk trying to save you because you don’t believe in something.

© 2017 Kriss A. Kevorkian. All rights reserved.

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.

Squirrel Sex Is Complicated

Only 35 Mount Graham squirrels remain in the wild, but five captive squirrels could hold the key to their long-term survival — if we can get them to breed.

It began with a bolt of lightning on June 7 and ended with a fire that eventually encompassed a staggering 48,000 acres of southeastern Arizona. By the time the blaze had been extinguished this past July, thousands of trees had been lost or damaged, impacting the already degraded habitat for the critically endangered Mount Graham squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus grahamensis). Surveys conducted this past September in the high-elevation forests of the Pinaleño Mountains, about three hours east of Phoenix, revealed that the squirrels’ population had fallen to an estimated 35 animals and that at least 80 percent of their habitat had been damaged by the fires.

Could this be the end of the Mount Graham squirrel, which was already once thought to be extinct and has been protected by the Endangered Species Act since 1987?

The answer to that question may lie not on the mountain itself but in the halls of Phoenix Zoo’s Arizona Center for Nature Conservation, where five Mount Graham squirrels form the core of a captive-assurance program that could help save the species from extinction.

There’s just one catch: We need to figure out how to get them to breed first.

That hasn’t been easy, says Stuart Wells, the zoo’s former director of conservation and science, who was in charge of the program until last month. The squirrels, it turns out, are extremely territorial, aggressive loners who attack and even kill other squirrels, including potential mates, that invade their home turf. That makes it impossible to keep the captive animals together in the same enclosure — or even within sight of each other. On top of that minor complication, the animals are also incredibly sensitive to environmental changes like temperature and sound. And until recently we simply didn’t know how to keep the species healthy in captivity, let alone get it to breed.

Fortunately we’ve learned a lot since the squirrels were first brought into captivity in 2011. Wells says one of the most striking new pieces of information we’ve discovered is that female squirrels don’t only enter estrus once or twice a year, as most previous scientific evidence indicated. Instead, it appears they cycle about every 25 days.

Wells and his team hit upon this new information in the early days of the captive program, before they had a federal permit to actually breed the animals (a required step under the Endangered Species Act). As part of ongoing health monitoring they tested the female squirrels’ droppings for steroids called fecal metabolites — a technique Wells first used on cheetahs — which revealed when the animals were fertile. This is information that never could have been gathered in the wild, he points out.

“We were actually very surprised when we got the first year’s results back and noticed that they were actually cycling somewhat periodically throughout the year,” Wells says. That meant they had more than one opportunity a year to try breeding.

After timing, the next challenge was figuring out which of the zoo’s three males would be welcome suitors to the two females in breeding season. Again, not an easy task, since the males and females had to be kept apart most of the time in order to minimize their aggression toward each other. Wells and his team solved that problem with more steroid tests, which revealed that males became much less aggressive when females were most receptive to breeding.

That was enough information to try to put a pair together. On the zoo’s first try, in 2016, they got a successful breeding attempt, and the female became pregnant.

It didn’t come to term, though. Tragically, the zoo’s air conditioning went out and temperatures in the squirrels’ enclosures soared above comfortable levels. “It only got to 82 degrees in the enclosures, but these are animals that live at 10,000 feet,” Wells says. With temperatures above what the squirrels would normally encounter high in the mountains, the pregnancy failed. Another test of her fecal steroids revealed why: the female’s stress cortisol levels had shot up to 10,000 nanograms, well above her normal level of just 488, because of the heat.

A second attempt also failed because of a different stressor: noise. “Our breeding season last year began in March and concluded in October,” Wells says. That overlapped with the time the zoo was building a new enclosure to hold the squirrels. “It wasn’t heavy construction,” he says, but it was too loud for the animals. “If you can imagine how much sound you hear in the forest when you’re walking through, that’s pretty much where they’ve evolved. They tend to avoid any sounds above 70 decibels, but in this captive setting their tendency to want to move away from that sound would be compromised because they can’t go someplace else.”

That stress was too much: The animals just weren’t in the mood.

Those early attempts didn’t work, but they helped improve knowledge of what will be necessary in the future to allow the rare squirrels to breed. “What we’re hoping is that this next coming season will have everything in place and be ready to get a successful breeding, and that’s going to be the next part of the story,” Wells says.

And if they do succeed in breeding, it could be a game-changer for Mount Graham squirrel conservation. The captive females could conceivably give birth a few times a year, each time producing two to four pups, some or all of which could eventually be returned to their native habitat. “The goal of the program is producing animals that can survive in the wild,” Wells says.

Here’s another interesting twist: The research conducted to benefit the captive population might also be of value for the few remaining wild squirrels — not in terms of getting them to breed, but of making sure they have enough food on the mountaintop, which was heavily degraded by construction even before the fires. “Some of the work we did early on was to develop a nutrient program for keeping these guys at the right weight in captivity without being too heavy,” Wells says. That information could be useful for providing supplemental food for wild squirrels whose seed sources were lost or damaged in the fires. “Our partners with U.S. Fish and Wildlife and Arizona Fish and Game have identified in which areas the squirrels are active. Providing food to those areas will help the squirrels have as good a chance as possible of having food for the winter.”

And not just this winter — Wells says it could take up to 70 years for the trees on Mount Graham to recover enough to provide enough food for the squirrels and protective cover from aerial predators. “That is…daunting,” he says. “How do you keep these guys going for 70 years, and none of us will be around — at least I won’t — to say ‘yeah, that worked.’ You kind of have to have faith that what you’re doing now is actually going to have a positive impact. Really, that’s all you can do.”

Careers in Environmental Science: Vitally Important Jobs, Crappy Pay

Yet the right-wing talking point that climate scientists are only in it for the money persists.

It happened again: A neighbor just me asked what I do, I told them I run an environmental news site, and they responded with a sneer: “Oh, that climate change crap. Those scientists only say that stuff because they’re getting paid.”

Hearing this much-echoed right-wing talking point — which has been repeated so many times many people often believe it’s true — just saddens me, because I’m in a rare position to understand the reality. I’ve been working with scientists for the majority of my life. Over the past few decades I have spoken with, and interviewed, thousands of scientists over the phone and in person, sometimes over meals and drinks. Never once has anyone bragged about the money they’re making. Instead I usually hear the opposite: how hard it is to fund their research or even their own salaries.

Maybe they’re out there — these Ferrari-driving, money-grubbing researchers fleecing us all —but in all my years of environmental reporting I’ve never encountered them. The scientists I’ve met are doing their work because they’re dedicated to the pursuit of scientific truth and making the world a more intelligent, thoughtful place. It can be a difficult, tedious and lonely task, with long hours and stubbornly elusive fame and fortune. But they do it anyway, because they believe it’s important. And it is.

But it doesn’t really pay. Take environmental scientists, for example. According to the job site Indeed, the environmental scientist jobs posted over the past two years had an average salary of $58,885. Postdoctoral positions — the most common jobs for early-career scientists — pay a little less, about $53,000, according to the job site Glassdoor. Climbing up the job ladder helps, although there are much fewer jobs at higher levels. Research scientist jobs are paid $76,154 on average, and if you’ve got years of professional experience you can made an average of $90,619 as a senior scientist.

That sounds like a lot — heck, it’s more than most of the people in my neighborhood make — but keep in mind that these jobs all require doctorate degrees and many years of education, meaning any budding scientist likely leaves school heavily in student debt. That financial obligation doesn’t go away quickly, if ever. According to a recent report by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, about 2.8 million Americans over the age of 60 are still struggling to pay off their student debts.

But what’s that, you say? It’s not the salaries that draw people into this field, it’s the lucrative grant money? Millions and millions of dollars, right? Well, to let the air out of that conspiracy theory, check out this “Global Weirding” video from climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe, who illustrates quite clearly just how much money from a recent $1.1 million grant went into her pockets:

(If you skipped the video, here’s the answer: $0.00.)

All of this brings to mind a troubling story. A few years ago I traveled to a scientific conference for which I’d been lucky enough to receive a fellowship. I wasn’t being paid to attend, but the organization sponsoring me did cover my airfare and hotel room, which I shared with another journalist from the fellowship. It was a fairly nice room, right at the same building where the conference took place, meaning we didn’t need to find transportation between buildings at night. I thought that was a good deal, because the surrounding neighborhood was what I could categorize as one step above seedy.

I figured most of the scientists speaking at the convention would also be staying at the same hotel and therefore easy to interview. Nope. It turned out many of them were staying at hotels a few blocks or a few miles away, in much less desirable parts of town. They didn’t have anyone paying their way, nor did they have expense accounts. Their travel costs, hotel fees and meals were all coming out of their own pockets. As a result they needed to do everything they could to cut their expenses.

For one group of researchers I spoke with, that penny-pinching actually put them in a decent amount of danger. There were several of them, all early-career women, splitting a room in a run-down motel about a mile from the conference. One morning they woke up to find their door ajar. It turned out the frame was bent and the door just didn’t latch correctly, allowing someone else to silently sneak into their room.

They were very lucky. None of them was hurt and they had slept through the intrusion — but in the early morning light they realized that some of their laptops were gone.

I guess this is what irritates me the most about the conspiracy theories that claim scientists say the world is warming just to enrich their own wallets. In reality these are highly educated, highly devoted individuals. They’re doing work they know is critically important, and they’re sometimes living well below the mean for their trouble. They’re not enriching themselves, but they are enriching our understanding of the planet. That’s something we should all be commending, not attacking.

Life through a Filtered Lens

We look at nature through our all-too human lens, but how does that reflect back on us?

A group of tourists ran up to a lanky ball of fur curled up on a sidewalk at our resort in the Riviera Maya.

“Look! It’s a monkey!”

Phones and cameras took over the scene and snapped away for a few seconds. People shrieked and giggled, and then they continued walking.

That same monkey kept showing up, and the tourists loved it. I was with them. More than 50 New World monkey species live in Latin America, and that’s exciting when you come from a place like Texas — home to plenty of wild rattlesnakes, but not a single monkey.

One evening, I saw a woman slowly walking around the premises, scanning the area like she’d lost something.

“Have you seen a monkey around here?” she asked me.

I described the one that had been hanging around the resort.

“Ah, yes. He must be getting depressed. He escaped from our monkey sanctuary about five months ago, and it’s getting cold.”

Slightly disappointed that my monkey encounters weren’t actual wildlife encounters, I asked what species it was. She described it as a subspecies of spider monkey.

Turns out they’re not even native to the region. Little did all the tourists know, the monkey fulfilling exotic expectations wasn’t even from around here. And he seemed to miss his tribe.

For my wife and I, it was the first of many encounters with nature throughout our nine-day honeymoon in Mexico’s haven of tourism, ranging from odd to uncomfortable, contrived and unexpected, and — in the end — glorious.

The ferocious jungle

Finding nature was easy, but there was often something about it that felt a tad sterile. Even the “Jungle Maya Tour” we did — which was supposed to be an up-close encounter with the jungle — almost felt more like a stereotypical movie jungle set than raw nature. I looked around at the trails and they were clear of any scattered foliage. Picturesque palm branches looked groomed to symmetry.

And then something else hit me: Where were the bugs?

I asked our guide, a burly guy with rosy cheeks, a red beard and thick Austrian accent.

“Oh they cleared them out about five years ago,” he explained. All it took was sprinkling an “all-natural” powder in the park’s ponds where mosquito larvae hatched and it wiped them all out at once.

Effective, yes, but wouldn’t this mess with the ecosystem?

He insisted that it had no negative effect since it was in such an isolated area.

I also wondered about snakes — after all, I’d heard that 52 species live in the region — and he told me about huge fer-de-lance vipers they used to find. But they also posed too much of a risk to visitors, so they had them relocated.

By this point, I’m sure he sensed that I felt a little uneasy about the whole situation and perhaps even a tad gypped. Then he told me a story about how he had trekked deep into the jungle a few weeks ago for some conservation work, and within minutes he landed in thick patches of ticks that ended up clinging to his entire body. He was also covered in mosquito bites. The jungle isn’t for anyone.

The thing is, everyone loves the idea of nature, but once we see the reality of its pure ferocious majesty, we all beg for that tame Hollywood set again.

Perhaps the jungle just wasn’t the right place to start.

The mighty sea

As I write this, I’m stretched across a beach chair, watching tourists wade in the calm, shallow waters of the Caribbean Sea. A couple hundred feet out, a line of buoys stretches around the bay with huge, perfectly rounded rocks stacked just beyond them, each one covered in some type of netting that catches the full brunt of choppy whitecaps. It was a dividing line — the only thing standing between thousands of miles of raw nature and the wee sliver of tamed nature we called “the beach” — like a wall to our safe little cage.

I also found out that many beaches in the area don’t even have natural sand — or, it may be real, but it’s brought in by the truckload from somewhere else. The practice is quite common around the world. That’s because beaches don’t exactly maintain the same shape when they’re being slammed by waves all day. Multiply that process across years and decades, and entire coastlines may soon be unrecognizable. Meanwhile, man-made buildings and other structures are plopped beside these malleable lands. To make that work in the long-run, you’re gonna need some backup sand.

Plus, let’s be honest — humans like their sand fine and free of jagged rocks, and you just don’t find that everywhere. So if you’re the owner of a resort, and your beach isn’t sandy, what are you gonna do?

When we went on a snorkeling excursion on one of the days, we saw a different side of the ocean, beyond our beach’s wall of buoys. A small boat brought us a couple miles out to drop our tiny bodies into the vast open water to explore the world’s second largest barrier reef, the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef.

For some reason, I expected something calm and crystal-clear, like our resort’s aquarium of a beach, but instead, tall waves carried us back and forth and up and down as we tried to keep our focus on the colorful fish and coral below us (which some people complained weren’t colorful enough). I inhaled water a few times and almost vomited twice. Everyone else seemed to get by just fine, but it certainly wasn’t what we expected.

I was starting to get the impression that raw nature didn’t really want us there.

Hidden time-capsules

As we continued our excursions, we learned that some raw habitats are better-suited for exploration than others. The most memorable experience of the trip was a snorkeling venture through the Sistema Sac Actun, the second longest underwater cave in the world that slithers beneath earth’s surface for 143 miles, extending hundreds of feet deep in some parts. The Mayas considered it an entrance to the underworld.

On the surface, it was a scene that would make anyone a little claustrophobic — with only one or two feet between us and the stalactites above — but after dipping my face in the water it was like opening up fantasy’s favorite wardrobe, where you’re suddenly granted access to a vast, magical world (but with far fewer lions and witches). Rays of light from the guide’s headlamp shone through turquoise waters, illuminating walls of underwater stalagmites that zig-zagged in every direction, and some parts opened up like the floor had dropped beneath us. I effortlessly floated along, propelled by the gentle wiggle of my feet, and I gazed, wide-eyed, at the beauty around me.

Besides my goggles, there was no filter to the scene. It was about as pristine as nature gets, encapsulated in the earth to keep it that way. In 2007, divers explored the cave system’s depths and found bones of giant sloths, mastodons (similar to elephants), and even the oldest complete human skeleton ever discovered in the Americas — that of a teenage girl who had apparently fallen down its chambers about 13,000 years ago. And she was still down there all this time, preserved in ancient waters.

To be fair, it wasn’t entirely natural — after all, wooden steps led us into the water, and small lights were installed near the entrance — but wow, am I glad humans interfered with this one. My echolocation isn’t quite up to par with the colony of bats we saw, and it would have been a dark and scary swim without lighting.

Back home in the sky

When nine days were said and done, I hadn’t seen a single wild monkey.

Back on the plane, I sat down in my chair in the sky — my second home — and reflected on the trip, looking out the window at the gradient of natural environments below us. I saw strips of land in all shades of greens and blues, which molded into seas and warped with underwater sand dunes that occasionally peaked out as little islands. I saw miles of jungle, and hundreds of resorts carved out of its materials, roads crisscrossing the land, and beaches with shared sands.

I knew that somewhere down there were manatees and dolphins, jaguars and tapirs, snakes that can take you down in minutes, tree frogs and salamanders, and surely, thousands of monkeys — vast webs of life tucked away in ferocious jungles and swimming through mighty seas that simply aren’t suited for man. You can see it through screens, and you might catch glimpses in the parks, or even escaped from the zoo, but without our little filters — without the gear, without the walls and groomed environments — nature’s truly “exotic” side would swallow us whole.

For, at our own natural core, we are only human.

© 2017 Doug Stienstra. All rights reserved. Originally published at Life on a Planet.

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.

A Challenge: Fashion Must Go Beyond ‘Natural’ to Be Sustainable

The fashion industry can learn a lesson or two from sustainable food.

Conservation, renewables, organic, sustainable. These have become colloquialisms in the energy, ecology and agricultural sectors. But in the fashion industry? Not so much.

What little progress there has been toward more “sustainable” fashion comes on the coattails of the food movement. The same way we’ve become sticklers for sustainably sourced seafood, local broccoli and, among the most diehard true believers, cashew cheese, we’re increasingly asking “Who made my clothes?” One of these days, we may be as curious about our hangtags as our ingredient labels.

Fashion stands to gain much by following the food movement’s lead. But it should avoid one pitfall that bottlenecked our progress in sustainable food: the fallacy whereby consumers wrongly equate “natural” with “good.”

Philosophers have grappled with this idea in moral ethics and environmentalism since at least the turn of the 20th century. Today it’s become a new, more pernicious form of greenwashing. We see the words all natural emblazoned on an array of foodstuff wrappers from meats, breads, dairy products and drinks to , until recently, chips in the Frito-Lay family, all touting spurious health claims.

Sadly, the “natural” fallacy is now spilling into fashion. The same way the food industry has misled well-intended “conscious consumers” to believe an “all-natural” label is somehow more regulated or more sustainable, fashion companies are now coopting consumers’ established notions around food sourcing and using them to their advantage. In the United States, brands tout “natural production methods” and suggest that materials like cotton and bamboo (viscose rayon or bamboo linen) are better for the environment without substantiating their claims (hint: they’re not). Unfortunately, in a regulatory environment that defers to industry to set the agenda, consumers are unable to get a clear view.

King Cotton

Let’s look closer at the fabric of our lives to illustrate this point. Most consumers who subscribe to “sustainable dressing” believe that cotton, in its plant-based glory, reigns supreme over its devilish and cheap alternative, synthetic polyester. “Earth good, chemicals bad.”

But, as with most things in sustainability, it’s not zero-sum.

Cotton, even in its organic form, uses a vast amount of water, land and energy. Estimates put the water requirements for organic cotton somewhere in the ballpark of 1,400–3,400 gallons per pound of fiber. When it comes to land use, cotton is cultivated as a genetically modified monocrop in the United States, meaning it depletes, rather than replenishes, the soil.

Ironically, this over-engineering does not actually increase output. Only a third of the yield gets used in textile production. Adding to this, organic cotton also requires fossil fuels to provide energy for irrigation and produce the chemicals and fertilizers needed to sustain its growth. Accounting for this added energy expenditure, the arithmetic of that shockingly puts organic cotton on a par with virgin polyester.

cotton
It takes about 8.6–9.4 Kwh per pound of fiber to make both conventional and organic cotton, not factoring in energy needed for irrigation and fertilizers. Photo: Trisha Downing via Unsplash

Polyester, on the other hand, requires slightly more energy expenditure up front, but can be recycled infinitely in a near closed-loop system without any quality degradation. Also, it requires little to no water, even in virgin production.

Assessing polyester and cotton on the basis of their transport footprint, they weigh relatively equally, since the United States largely imports both textiles from across the Atlantic.

Playing the Long Game of Durability

When it comes to longevity, cotton doesn’t hold up like polyester. When recycled, cotton fibers gradually degrade, producing a lower-quality thread. Today there’s not much use for recycled cotton other than industrial rags or paper. Eventually most of it ends up in landfills.

While there are valid and important concerns about microplastics and toxins entering the water supply during the production and garment care of polyester, it slightly edges out cotton in this category because it’s more stain-resistant, holds its shape and washes better in cold water.

All data considered, it’s hard to make an outright call on eco-impact, unless organic cotton is compared against recycled polyester, in which case, the latter “unnatural” fiber wins. This isn’t as clear-cut for virgin polyester. Still, in this gray area, one thing is undeniable: The ecological halo around “natural” cotton is mostly hype.

Dyes from Past Decades

The same thing goes for dyes. Increasingly we praise indie brands for “going back to nature” and “honoring slow processes” when they use avocado pits and indigo instead of acids and AZOs. But there’s more to the story than the hangtag tells.

Sure the dyes are plant-based, but were they sustainably or organically grown? How much land and water did they use?

Natural dyes put strains on resources, just like natural cotton, and they can be as toxic as their chemical counterparts if dumped into waterways.

Then we get to issues having to do with application. Usually more “natural” dye is needed to achieve the desired outcome than with synthetics, and, even when that’s executed right, consumers often complain the colors aren’t saturated enough and quickly fade. What happens next? Buyers trash their naturally dyed garments, which end up in landfills, and resort to “conventionally” dyed ones. And the vicious waste cycle continues.

flower dyes
Consumers are dubious natural dyes will achieve the same vibrancy as conventional ones. Photo: Laura Ockel via Unsplash

This isn’t to say synthetic dyes are a positive alternative. Quite the contrary. But with limited resources and a growing population, natural dyes alone won’t sustain us. Reverting to old methods of dyeing only holds the industry back from more intelligent solutions.

Forces Against Nature

A better way forward will come from innovation — namely, technologies that fuse nature and science to minimize or eliminate toxic chemicals, petroleum, water and emissions from garment production.

Right now there’s a nascent group of companies creating solutions, and they’re backed by big names like H&M, through its Global Change Awards, and accelerators like Fashion Tech Lab.

Dropel is probably the best example of this “fusion” approach. By adding a protective layer of hydrophobic polymers to natural fibers, they’re creating more functional textiles. In essence they’re “life-proofing” garments for the long haul. Other innovators, like Evrnu, have developed technologies that make recycled cotton more viable. So viable, in fact, that Levi’s used it to make a pioneering pair of jeans from recycled cotton T-shirts.

Yet, despite this progress, fashion tech startups like these still need more funding. And to get it, they need to garner the attention of mainstream consumers. Regrettably, this could take longer if we stay wedded to the idea that “natural is better.”

While this thinking has been helpful in slowing rampant consumerism temporarily, if fashion is to go from small, homespun solutions to sustainability at scale, the industry’s future hinges on moving beyond it.

This doesn’t mean abandoning natural processes outright, but instead examining them to see if they are, indeed, the best options. With deeper analysis and a more logical approach to design that plans for things like circularity and longevity, we won’t have to revert “back to nature” to clothe ourselves.

© 2017 Kasi Martin. All rights reserved.

Journalists Need to Do More to Cover Wildlife and Environmental Crime

A challenge from the reporter who blew the lid off of Thailand’s Tiger Temple and exposed illegal wildlife trafficking from a Buddhist monastery.

For the past few years, much of my work as a journalist has focused on wildlife and environmental crime. I’ve covered poaching busts and seizures of everything from pangolin scales and big-cat skins to rhino horn, live turtles and songbirds. I’ve reported on the Asian, African and South American markets that sell animals live, dead and in parts, and about the consumers that drive this black-market trade. I’ve written about China, the largest consumer, where many endangered species products are luxury items bought by the wealthiest and most influential as a way to flaunt power and gain prestige. I’ve also explored the trade here in the United States — the world’s second largest consumer. I covered the ubiquitous bird trade in Latin America, where ownership of pet parrots and other birds is so rampant that few realize these animals are endangered, or that it’s against the law to buy or keep them.

One thread links all of these stories: illicit wildlife trade has become big business. It’s a $19 to $23 billion dollar a year industry, run by international organized crime syndicates — often the same people responsible for trafficking guns, drugs and people.

Yet from where I sit, there’s never been enough mainstream coverage on this massive loss of life on Earth. And despite the scope of the crisis, lately it’s become even harder for journalists to sell these stories.

Here’s the harsh reality of media today: When it comes to possible nuclear war with North Korea, millions of U.S. citizens potentially losing health coverage, massive climate-change-charged hurricanes or mass shootings in a nightclub, rock concert or Sunday church service, wildlife stories become a hard sell. A story on coral bleaching, pangolin poaching or tiger trafficking is just not going to grab an editor’s attention.

Another challenge is the time scale of the demise. Although scientists say this is becoming a full-blown crisis that will ultimately affect all life on Earth, it’s a slow-motion train wreck in terms of the news cycle. This doesn’t necessarily work well for media outlets focused on maximum page views, Tweets and shares.

And it’s always difficult to sell these stories unless there are dramatic or bloody headlines.

But wildlife trade is a dramatic and bloody business, although it’s rarely seen as such. And we’re witnessing an unprecedented surge in poaching and illegal trade of wild plants and animals, which is now occurring at an industrial scale.

Growing demand is driving what has become a large-scale massacre of African elephants for ivory, rhinos for their horn (which is now worth more than gold or cocaine on the black market), tigers for their skins. A census published in 2016 found that 144,000 elephants disappeared from 15 African countries in less than a decade. The Species Survival Commission’s African Rhino Specialist Group reported in 2016 that the number of African rhinos poached in Africa had increased for the sixth year in a row.

Perhaps 3,800 tigers still roam the wild, split among the five remaining wild subspecies, meaning that only a few hundred wild Siberian, Sumatran, Indochinese and Malayan tigers survive.

These are the iconic creatures that make headlines, but this massive illegal industry in wildlife has put innumerable animals on the fast track to extinction. We’re losing species at more than 100 times the normal rate. From a scientific perspective, this loss is so rapid and extreme that it’s often called “the Sixth Extinction.” In July, Paul Ehrlich and colleagues categorized the situation in even more catastrophic terms, calling it “biological annihilation.” If this level of widespread slaughter were killing human beings, we’d label it genocide. Many of the world’s most iconic, beloved species — as well as animals we’ve never heard of — could vanish from the wild or disappear from the planet within our lifetimes.

Numbers like the ones I’ve cited have become the standard journalistic narrative, and I’ve written plenty of these stories, too. While they matter, numbers don’t tell the whole story — and now, a decade-plus into the current poaching crisis, many readers are aware that elephants and tigers are in the crosshairs.

We need to go beyond quoting statistics on the carnage and reporting from the surface. I’m challenging myself — and challenging other journalists — to dig deeper. And not just on wildlife crime, but on broader environmental crime that’s killing wildlife, poisoning land and felling the remaining tracts of forests that pump out the oxygen we need to breathe, store carbon and filter the water we need to drink.: illegal logging, illegal mining, illegal land grabs that demolish forest for industrial plantations — and more.

We need to start asking tough questions. Who’s behind large wildlife trafficking operations? Who’s laundering the profits from illegal wildlife, logging and fishing operations?

Which U.S. companies buy palm oil from newly or illegally deforested land — and who are the local officials turning a blind eye and/or financially benefitting from rainforest slash-and-burned for crops or cattle ranches?

Who are the customs agents, local police, military or government officials who facilitate illegal activity? (Al Jazeera’s deep-dive investigation in the Poacher’s Pipeline documentary did just that — linking illegal rhino trade in South Africa to the country’s head of state security and Asian embassies.) Who gets the money from trophy-hunting operations in Africa that purportedly benefit wildlife conservation?

More of my fellow reporters need to dig into corruption and wrongdoing. Follow the money.

But we also need to write the success stories. We need to cover innovative initiatives and technologies that are effective — and examine why they’re working. Some examples: WildAid makes Hollywood-quality PSAs starring Chinese business leaders and celebrities like Jackie Chan and Yao Ming to discourage Asian consumers from buying endangered species. The U.S. Wildlife Trafficking Alliance is working with the U.S. government urging travelers to avoid buying souvenirs that come from imperiled species — items like conch shells and tortoise shell jewelry.

I’d like to share the impact of one of my stories, produced last year: an investigation into the Tiger Temple in Thailand.

For a decade global news stories alleged that Thailand’s Tiger Temple — a Buddhist monastery that doubled as a tourist attraction where visitors petted, fed and took selfies with tigers — abused its cats and might be involved in illegal wildlife trade. That was the narrative that had been published in innumerable stories by media outlets across the globe. But no one ever dug in to find out for sure.

Then, in 2015, I was approached by Sybelle Foxcroft, a former source whom I’d interviewed as part of a book project. Foxcroft told me she had proof that the temple was trading tigers into the black-market trade in wildlife, and soon began feeding me documents. It launched an 11-month investigation.

Through Foxcroft and other sources, I obtained a trove of information. It included leaked audio of the temple’s abbot talking about trading tigers; numerous eyewitness accounts of disappearing tigers; a tiger trade contract with a Laotian tiger “farm” signed by the abbot; emails and piles of documents, spreadsheets and data. I was given a videotaped interview with the monk who unlocked the gates on evenings when three tigers vanished in December 2014, tigers that were microchipped and therefore traceable, as well as the temple’s CCTV footage from those two nights.

In January 2016, National Geographic published the results of this investigation in a feature story that included a 7 ½–minute video I co-produced with photographer Steve Winter. It included strong allegations of illegal international tiger trafficking by the Tiger Temple that began in 2004 and continued for a decade.

It was a challenging story for many reasons. First off, I’m not trained as an investigative reporter. I don’t speak Thai. Much of the material I gathered had to be translated, and since Thai-to-English translations are not exact, key sections of video, audio and documents had to be translated three times to ensure I had it right. Deep government corruption and a cultural proclivity for “saving face” — aka not revealing wrongdoing — made it necessary to confirm all facts with many sources. I ultimately interviewed 70-plus people from across the globe. Trying to probe possible criminal activity within a religious institution in any country is extremely difficult, and that was certainly a hurdle as I tried to investigate an abbot and a monastery in Thailand, a devout Buddhist country.

With leads from many colleagues and sources, it all came together, and the world took notice. The day after publication, the story was picked up by the Bangkok Post, by Thailand’s top TV news station and by international media. The coverage prompted outrage from the public and wildlife groups, and sparked a campaign by the nonprofit Sanctuary Asia, which buried the environment minister’s office in letters and emails.

Four months later, under intense pressure, the government shut down the Tiger Temple. In the first of two follow up stories, I reported what happened: Thai officials confiscated all of the venue’s 137 tigers. They discovered 40 tiger cubs frozen in the kitchen’s industrial freezers, 20 more preserved in large glass bottles and other endangered species products. Police arrested two monks trying to drive away in a car filled with tiger contraband.

I’ve continue to follow the story. No one has gone to court, and the Tiger Temple has formed an offshoot company that’s trying to open a zoo — which will include tigers.

This story had global implications. The growing demand for tiger products is being fed, in part, by captive-breeding facilities in Asia — and this growing market places the last 3,800 wild tigers in the crosshairs.

So how do we produce these deep-dive stories — especially as freelancers — in today’s media market? It’s a serious challenge. I worked on the Tiger Temple story for 11 months; the last seven weeks were 12-hour days, seven days a week. I was given bare-bones travel expenses for one trip to Thailand and a small budget for experts to translate Thai audio, video and documents. I was paid a fee for the story and the video — but frankly, if I break down my payment by the hour, I was making less than I would have behind the counter at a fast-food restaurant.

That story fell into my lap, and I found myself amidst a whirlwind. Now, whenever I can, I’m trying to work smarter: applying for grants and angling multiple stories from my reporting to broaden the income stream.

There’s another important consideration in doing this work. When young journalists speak to me about wanting to cover the illegal wildlife trade, I remind them that this is, first and foremost, crime coverage. That means serious safety considerations for ourselves and, sometimes, for our sources, whose lives could be at stake if their identities are revealed.

Let me share a painful example. I obscured the identity of my main source on the Tiger Temple story, a trusted Temple insider. But the Bangkok Post then dug in, discovered who he was — and outed him. Since then, the man has received periodic death threats and hasn’t slept in the same place for more than three nights in a row — for the past 18 months. It’s not surprising; there was a lot of money involved. This man helped shut down a $3 million a year tiger tourism operation — plus whatever the temple may have brought in from wildlife trafficking.

Another ethical issue is what we report. For example, what are the ethics of revealing an undercover method used by wildlife investigators if it means that this tool is outed — and can no longer be used to investigate wildlife crime? It’s something to consider.

These are important stories, and they’re not just about the demise of individual species. Each of these animals is part of interwoven ecosystems that have evolved in synchrony over millions of years. Pulling threads from this fabric of life has cascading effects that reverberate throughout and across systems. Take elephants: They’re the landscapers of the savannah, eating shrubs and tree sprouts that would transform the land to forest. In the process, they keep the land open for antelope, zebras and other grazers. They dig for water with their tusks, creating watering holes that other animals use to survive. African forest elephants spread seeds farther and more effectively than any other forest animal on the continent — and some plants rely entirely on these pachyderms for dispersal and survival.

But at the current rate of slaughter for their tusks, wild African elephants could disappear in a decade. And much of the African continent could suffer forever in their absence.

It’s just one example of why wildlife stories matter and why it’s important for journalists to keep them in the public eye.

Some sources for wildlife crime stories:

The National Whistleblower Center

Wildlife Crime Tech Challenge

WildAid

© 2017 Sharon Guynup. All rights reserved.