Thai Activists Fight Trash Taboo

Beach cleanup efforts in Thailand illustrate the global problem of plastic pollution.

U.K. expat Rich Cramp and I sat in white plastic chairs on Nai Yang Beach in Phuket, Thailand, one afternoon this past June. With the sea behind us, plates of pad thai and Leo beer in front of us, we chatted about his involvement as a local organizer with Trash Hero, a Thailand-born, but now global, conservation nonprofit. He said the organization’s goal is to educate people about plastic pollution and get volunteers to clean up beaches, especially in places like Thailand where awareness of plastic pollution and its implications is low.

“It is a huge cultural taboo in Thailand to clean up other people’s trash,” said Cramp. “So much of what gets onto the ground stays on the ground or blows into freshwater sources or the ocean.”

thailand beach trash plastic
Plastic covers Nai Yang Beach in Phuket, Thailand. © 2017 Erica Cirino, used with permission

In Thailand — the world’s sixth-greatest plastic polluter — and many other developing countries in Asia, socioeconomically disadvantaged people are delegated to clean up trash. So, Cramp explained, while Thais will clean up trash on their own properties, they tend to avoid cleaning other people’s trash in public places to avoid being seen by others as “lower class.”

This cultural taboo has lead to a huge accumulation of plastic trash in Thailand’s forests, lagoons, roadsides and beaches.

While exploring the country’s urban and natural places, I found that most of the litter on the ground was single-use plastic items like food wrappers and disposable eating utensils. But I also came across unwanted plastic-heavy items with more long-term use, like dishwashers and microwave ovens, washed up on beaches after being tossed into the sea. I saw huge amounts of microplastic — colorful plastic bits broken down from larger items —on beaches, and yards of frayed synthetic rope and fishing line wrapped around mangrove roots.

That’s consistent with the latest global data on plastic production, consumption and disposal. According to some of the world’s foremost plastic experts, 42 percent of all plastic not used to make clothing is used to manufacture packaging for consumer products. The second-biggest user of nonfiber plastic is the building and construction sector, followed by consumer products, industrial machinery, electronics and transportation, among other uses. About 8.3 billion metric tons of virgin plastic has been produced since the 1950s, with 6.3 billion metric tons of all that plastic discarded after use, most of which ends up in landfills and the environment. Only a small fraction gets recycled.

Cramp, in agreement with other cleanup organizers and scientists I’ve spoken to, said that the key to reducing the amount of plastic that ends up in the natural environment is to stop producing so much of it. But as we sat there on the beach, he also said events like beach cleanups can have a positive effect on the planet.

“When people get involved, they see the problem and learn more about it,” said Cramp. “They may feel empowered to buy less plastic and take care not to litter. Or they may feel compelled themselves to pick up the litter they see.”

Yet in Thailand, where there’s a huge amount of plastic to tackle, native Thais tend to be reluctant to join the cleanups for cultural reasons — which means many of his volunteers are expats like him.

Beach cleanup organizer Krix Luther, another U.K. expat who founded his own Thailand-based beach-cleanup nonprofit called Clean the Beach Bootcamp in May 2013, said he has the same issues as Cramp. Still, he’s optimistic about where things are heading. It seems that a growing number of Thais, especially young people, have the awareness and desire to take good care of their home environment.

“While most of my volunteers are expats and tourists, as well as teachers and their students, I do see a growing number of Thai volunteers,” said Luther, who holds a free fitness boot camp for people of all ages before his weekly cleanups. “Many are young people in their thirties, twenties and even teens. The beauty of a beach cleanup is that it’s so easy, anyone at any age can get involved and make a difference.”

I attended one of Luther’s Clean the Beach Bootcamps at Nai Harn Beach. There participants completed an hour-long beach workout led by Luther. About 50 participants — men and women; seniors, adults, teens and children; intense athletes and everyday people — ran and crawled across the beach’s soft sand and splashed through its turquoise-blue water. After a beach yoga cool-down, they spent an hour working together to pick up trash off the beach, stuffing about 660 pounds of trash into black garbage bags. Luther and a few volunteers also installed two bamboo garbage receptacles on the beach, which he said he hopes will encourage people to responsibly dispose of their trash, rather than leaving it on the beach.

trash heroes
About 50 participants showed up on Nai Harn Beach at this Clean the Beach Bootcamp session this summer. © 2017 Erica Cirino, used with permission

Among the participants that day was Emanuele Mario Montalde, an 18-year-old Thai man who had just graduated high school. Montalde, who said he wants to pursue a career in environmental conservation, told me part of the reason for Thais’ reluctance to clean up trash is that in the past, it wasn’t as much of a problem.

“The state contracts some cleanup efforts and resorts will pay people to pick up trash,” said Montalde. “But Thailand began using plastic much later in the game than many other countries — in my grandparents’ and parents’ generations they used materials like banana leaves, glass, metal and paper to hold food and make things. So there’s not a great infrastructure in place in Thailand to deal with plastic today.”

I asked Cramp, Luther and several Thai people where the trash collected on the beach ends up. And I got a resounding “I’m not quite sure” from each of them. According to Thai investigations, Thailand has a fast-growing solid waste management problem. Only about 20 percent of its 2,500 dumping sites are properly managed, and only about 5 million tons of the nearly 30 million tons of solid waste generated annually are recycled.

Awareness of plastic pollution in Thailand is increasing, said Montalde, but until the country gets ahold of how it manages its waste, the environment will remain imperiled. “Unfortunately people are still using huge amounts of plastic every day. And if we want to save the planet, we need to use a lot less of it and dispose of it properly.”

© 2017 Erica Cirino. All rights reserved.

Previously in The Revelator:

Junk Raft: A Journey Through a Polluted Ocean

Environmental Justice Means Desegregating the Environmental Movement

Here are five ways to help to make the world a more diverse — and more just — place.

If a sports team left some of its best players sitting on the bench and didn’t bring them into the game, fans would wonder why. It just doesn’t make any sense to leave out people who can help win.

And yet this is essentially what the mainstream U.S. environmental movement is doing. According to a recent analysis by the group Green 2.0, most people who work at mainstream environmental organizations are white. The comparatively few people of color who are paid to work on environmental issues are more likely to be employed at environmental justice groups. Given that mainstream environmental organizations have far more money and influence than environmental justice groups, this segregation is a real problem.

When I raise this topic with other white people, it often makes them uncomfortable. I’ve been told that efforts to increase the number of people of color who get conservation jobs are artificial, unnatural and go against meritocracy. In addition to the obvious unconscious racism, I believe these views are motivated by fear that racially diversifying the environmental movement will mean they or someone they love won’t get hired.

In my experience, this fear is unfounded. White people lose environmental jobs to other white people, not to people of color. I know because I am a middle-aged white woman, and I have applied for many environmental jobs. With one exception, jobs I’ve not gotten have gone to other whites. In that case, the position went to a Latina whose political experience was much superior to mine. She earned the job because she outcompeted me, which is how the process should work. Unfortunately, too often it doesn’t.

Luckily, this situation is far from hopeless. There are things that can be done right now to desegregate the U.S. environmental movement and employ more people of color. You can help, regardless of your race and your role in the environmental movement.

Things Anyone Can Do:

Use your money to create change. There’s an old rule of thumb that when people donate money to a cause, they can usually afford to give twice as much as they actually do. So if you’re currently giving money to environmental groups, please keep doing that. But in addition, please consider giving that much again to groups that are on the front lines of environmental justice. Although many large environmental organizations saw a big bump up in donations after the November 2016 election, lots of small, scrappy groups who fight environmental racism didn’t. These are the groups who hire the most people of color, and they could really use your assistance.

If you’re tired of being asked for money, it may help if you remember that more than 70 percent of all charitable giving in the United States comes from individuals, but only 3 percent goes to environmental and animal welfare groups. If you have more time than money, you can volunteer.

Use your voice to push. You can also help by pressuring mainstream environmental groups to desegregate. An easy way is to participate in Green 2.0’s accountability campaign, which uses Twitter to encourage environmental foundations to make their own staffs and boards more diverse.

If you’re a member of an environmental group, ask them what they’re doing to desegregate and support communities of color. If the group already has a diversity statement, you can ask how they’re implementing it. If the group doesn’t have a diversity statement, you can ask them to write one.

Keep in mind that some organizations will not be receptive to a direct approach. At one small group I worked for, I quickly found that talking openly about diversity triggered instant resistance — even though the group already had employees who weren’t white. Because I had become that group’s executive director after a difficult job search that included several months of unemployment that I couldn’t afford to experience again so soon, I changed tack. I quietly put my efforts into building the organization’s relationships with more diverse groups and seeking funding that would require it to diversify. The latter is why it’s so important to get more environmental foundations and donors on board.

Things You Can Do if You Work for an Environmental Group

Look outside. First, change hiring processes to make them more inclusive. Many environmental jobs go to people who are already known to people at the organization or their friends. Because friendship in America is still highly segregated and most environmental groups have largely white staffs and boards, network-based hiring approaches favor whites. In addition, many environmental job listings are posted only on specialized job boards or email lists that that potential job applicants will not know about unless someone already working in the field clues them in. Since most of the people working in the environmental field are white, this method of publicizing job openings selects for white candidates.

Try harder. A common excuse for all-white or nearly all-white environmental group staffs is that diverse candidates did not apply. When this happens, it reflects a group’s social isolation. Fixing it means working long before the hiring process begins to build relationships with people who are more representative of what America looks like now. I have found community colleges, local United Way organizations, and VISTA and AmeriCorps groups helpful for finding new entry-level employees from outside the personal networks of coworkers and board members. Organizations looking for more senior workers may need to build different relationships.

Yes, I know this takes time that’s in short supply, and some will complain that it’s not part of their group’s mission. But if environmentalists don’t bust out of their current ways of doing things, the situation won’t improve.

Think about degrees of separation. Whether they realize they’re doing it or not, many organizations use college degree requirements as a filter to reduce the number of applicants. Although for some jobs, such as environmental attorneys, specific degrees and professional certifications are mandatory to do the work, many jobs at environmental groups don’t really require a university degree. Since going to college is expensive and college degrees are not evenly distributed by race and ethnicity, requiring college degrees for jobs that don’t actually need them filters applicants by social class, race and ethnicity.

Know that this change is vitally important and worth your time and money. From personal experience I can tell you that being paid to be a professional conservationist is life-changing. It means you can spend most of your time working on the environmental issues that mean so much to you instead of having to support yourself with a day job and volunteer on the side. Those who get hired by the largest environmental groups have the opportunity to do this work for a middle-class income and benefits. Reserving that experience primarily for whites is not only unjust, but robs the movement of talented people who would make it stronger.

© 2017 Kelly Fuller. 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.

Previously in The Revelator:

Finding Your Way as an Environmentalist in Rural America — Even if You’re LGBT

An Arctic Adventure, A Melting World

Rowing through the melting Northwest Passage means meeting the local people affected by climate change.

In 2013 four adventurers set out on an 80-day rowboat mission through the Arctic’s rapidly melting Northwest Passage. Their journey brought them face to face with the changing seas in a world of climate change. In this excerpt from adventurer Kevin Vallely’s new book about the expedition, Rowing the Northwest Passage (Greystone Books), we also see how climate change has affected some of the people the team met along their journey:

An elderly woman walks toward us from the road. Tuktoyaktuk, in the Northwest Territories, is a sizable town by Arctic standards, with a full-time population of 954, but it’s small enough that the bulk of the town likely knows we’re here. The woman is smiling when she reaches us.

“I saw you coming in,” she says. “Where you guys come from?” “We’re from Vancouver,” I say, my mouth still half full of food. “We started our trip in Inuvik nine days ago.” Her name is Eileen Jacobsen and she’s an Elder in town. She and her husband, Billy, run a sightseeing business. “You should come up to the house in the morning and have some coffee,” she tells us.

rowing northwest passageOur night’s sleep in the Arctic Joule is fitful; our overindulgence runs through all of us like a thunderstorm. By seven in the morning, even with both hatches open, lighting a match in the cabin would blow us out like dirt from that Siberian crater. The roar of the Jetboil pulls me out. Frank’s already up, down jacket on, preparing coffee. “You like a cup?”

It’s still too early to drop by Eileen Jacobsen’s house, so we walk into town on the dusty main road, our ears assaulted by a cacophony of barking dogs. Dirt is the surface of choice for roads and runways in Arctic communities, as any inflexible surface like concrete would be shredded by the annual freeze–thaw cycle. Most of the town runs the length of a thin finger of land, with the ocean on one side and a protected bay on the other. About halfway down the peninsula, a cluster of wooden crosses rests in a high grass clearing, facing west. We heard about this graveyard in Inuvik. Because of melting permafrost and wave action, it’s eroding into the sea, and community members have lined the shore with large rocks to forestall its demise. This entire peninsula will face this threat in the coming years. There’s not much land here to hold back a hungry ocean.

We notice an elderly man in a blue winter jacket staring at us a short distance away. He’s sitting outside a small wooden house and smiles as we approach. “You guys must be the rowers,” he says. “Too windy to be out rowing.” His jacket hood is pulled tight over his ball cap and he dons a pair of wraparound shades with yellow lenses that would better suit a racing cyclist than a village Elder. His name is Fred Wolki, and he’s lived in Tuk for the last fifty years. “I grew up on my father’s boat until they sent me to school in 1944, then I came here.”

His father, Jim Wolki, is a well-known fox trapper who transported his pelts from Banks Island to Herschel Island aboard his ship the North Star of Herschel Island. Interestingly, we had the Arctic Joule moored right beside the North Star at the Vancouver Maritime Museum before we left. Built in San Francisco in 1935, the North Star plied the waters of the Beaufort Sea for over thirty years, her presence in Arctic waters playing an important role in bolstering Canadian Arctic sovereignty through the Cold War.

“We’re curious if things have changed much here since you were a boy,” Frank says.

“Well…it’s getting warmer now,” Fred says, shaking his head. He gestures out to the water speaking slowly and pausing for long moments between thoughts. “Right up to the 1960s…there was old ice along the coast… The ice barely moved… It was grounded along the coastline.” He looks out over the shoreline, moving his arm back and forth. “They started to fade away slowly in the 1960s… icebergs… They were huge, like big islands… They were so high, like the land at the dew Line station… over there.” He points to the radar dome of the long decommissioned Distant Early Warning Line station that sits on a rise of land just east of us. “It’s been twenty years since we’ve seen one in Tuk.” There’s no sentimentality or anger in Fred’s voice; he’s just telling us his story. “It’s getting warmer now… Global warming is starting to take its toll… All the permafrost is starting to melt… Water is starting to eat away our land.”

I listen to his words, amazed. There’s no agenda here, no vested interest, no job creation or moneymaking — just an elderly man bearing witness to his changing world.

Excerpted from Rowing the Northwest Passage: Adventure, Fear, and Awe in a Rising Sea by Kevin Vallely, published September 2017 by Greystone Books. Condensed and reproduced with permission from the publisher.

Primate in Peril: India’s Vanishing Monkey

Populations of the once-common bonnet macaque have fallen 65 percent.

Sometimes even common species can vanish in the blink of an eye.

That’s apparently the case with a well-known Indian monkey called the bonnet macaque (Macaca radiata). Although conservationists consider this species to be of “least concern” in terms of its extinction risk, new research reveals that populations of the macaque have actually crashed by nearly 50 percent since 2003 and more than 65 percent over the past 25 years.

Researchers warn that this species now faces “serious conservation challenges” in order to stave off further declines.

So why have so many bonnet macaques disappeared in recent years? For one thing, they’ve lost ground to an invading species, the larger and more aggressive rhesus macaque (M. mulatta), which outcompetes its smaller cousins for food and habitat. “It’s been a gradual invasion,” reports one of the study’s authors, Honnavalli N. Kumara with the Sálim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History in Coimbatore, India. “The rhesus macaque is much more dominant species and highly adaptable,” which enables it to live in a wide range of habitats.

rhesus macaque
Rhesus macaque by Robert Martinez (CC BY 2.0)

The bonnet macaques, on the other hand, use a much narrower range of habitats. They typically live in or near Hindu temples, tourist sites, agricultural fields and roadways, where until recently they had abundant sources of food. That has shifted over the past quarter-century. The vegetation these macaques depend upon has been replaced with what the researchers call “barren lands and urbanization,” with many areas either completed razed or dominated by buildings, roads and aqueducts. As a result, fewer than half of the bonnet macaque roadside populations observed in 2013 remain today.

The macaques have also vanished from nearly 50 percent of temple sites and tourist areas, in part because they are considered nuisances. As the researchers wrote in their paper, “there has been a tremendous increase in the number of people visiting temples and tourist places in India. It has been observed that the tolerance of people for macaques in such places has been decreasing and there have been frequent trappings and translocations of macaques from such places to unfamiliar habitats” where they do not appear to have thrived. The researchers conclude that these temple sites no longer pose stable habitats for the species.

This has all hit the monkeys hard – because, as the researchers were surprised to find, the species does not typically dwell in forests. “We had a notion that the species is common everywhere, but when we started the surveys of the primates in south India we realized that the bonnet macaques are in really low in numbers in the forest,” says Kumara.

Now that the decline has been documented, can it be stopped? That depends on how many of the threats to the macaques can be managed. “What we are taking is a composite impact, including the loss of trees for the road development, and regular translocation from agriculture fields, tourist spots and temples,” says Kumara. “These factors together will have an impact the species’ population and its growth and survival.”

But hope is not lost. The researchers have identified several untouched areas where the bonnet macaque could still thrive. They have also created a list of active conservation efforts that would help the species, such as planting fruit trees on roadways, establishing vegetation patches in agricultural plots and creating migration corridors. Even building artificial bridges between trees could help the animals get to the food they need without descending to the ground and bothering humans. Speaking of which, the researchers also suggest that it is important to educate farmers, villagers and temple devotees about living near macaques, as would stopping what they call “unscientific unplanned translocations.”

This roadmap proposed by the researchers could help not only the bonnet macaque but several other at-risk Indian primate species. As the researchers conclude, their paper offers “a model for developing conservation strategies for all such species,” whether they are of “least concern” or not.

Previously in The Revelator:

Climate Change Puts Sea Turtles in the Hot Seat

Up Against the Border Wall

Trump’s border wall would imperil some of the most diverse ecosystems in two countries.

This story originally appeared in bioGraphic, an online magazine about nature and sustainability powered by the California Academy of Sciences.

On a quiet, late-spring morning in northern Sonora, Mexico, a beaver putters across a pond the size of a football field. A sinuous dam, 5 feet high, forms the pond’s southern edge. Frogs croak amid gnawed stumps, and the air is alive with birds and flying insects.

“This is all new; this wasn’t here last week,” says Daniel Toyo, an agricultural technician with Naturalia, a Mexican environmental nonprofit. “It takes them three days to build something like this.” Naturalia manages the Rancho Los Fresnos, a 39-square-kilometer (9,577-acre) property that was once a working cattle ranch. Now, it’s a demonstration site for sustainable ranching techniques and conservation education.

Los Fresnos encompasses the largest remaining group of ciénegas, or desert springs, in the watershed of the San Pedro River, which flows north into Arizona and joins the Gila River east of Phoenix. Most of the region’s desert wetlands have been degraded or destroyed by farms, ranches, and urban development.

The beaver (Castor canadensis) stops to nibble on a floating branch. Then it heads for a den dug into the near bank, leaving a wake that spreads across the surface and disappears. The only sound is the breeze rustling the leaves of cottonwood trees, and the occasional bird song.

Taking in this placid scene, it’s hard to believe that it could be so close to one of the most controversial international boundaries in the Americas. The Arizona border is just a 5-minute dirt-road drive north.

Gerardo Carreón, Naturalia’s conservation director, walks a short distance upstream and points out rusty cans, socks, and pieces of burlap wedged among the rocks. “Border crossers often leave trash,” he says. “Drug smugglers wrap their feet in burlap sacks to hide their footprints. Sometimes word goes out: ‘Don’t be out on the property after dark.’”

He points out flashes of light in the foothills of the Huachuca Mountains just across the border: the windshields of U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) trucks glinting in the sunlight. What appears as a tiny white oval hanging high above the vehicles is the CBP’s 200-foot-long helium-filled blimp with a radar system that can detect low-flying, drug-smuggling aircraft from 200 miles away. “I don’t think they’ve ever caught anything,” in part because smugglers have shifted their operations to the ground, Carreón says.

Amid all this, the beavers most likely waddled or paddled south from Arizona, where their forebears were reintroduced in 1999; after all, much of the ranch’s northern boundary is nothing more than a barbed-wire fence. But that would change if President Trump follows through on his campaign promise to build a “big, beautiful wall” between the U.S. and Mexico. Conservationists warn it would wreak havoc on already-stressed ecosystems and organisms along the roughly 3,200-kilometer (nearly 2,000-mile) border. As the president wrangles with Congress over the massive project’s funding, federal officials are already soliciting design bids and bulldozing critical wildlife habitat on public and private lands in preparation.

A study by researchers at the National Autonomous University of Mexico found that 882 vertebrate species, from geckos to pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana), would be affected by the new wall, which would slice through wildlife populations and block critical migration routes. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service estimates that the wall’s construction could impact 98 endangered species and 108 species of migratory birds.

Even if Trump’s wall is never built, however, existing barriers are already keeping mammals, birds, even reptiles and fish from seeking new territories, finding mates, and following centuries-old paths across the border from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico. Bluster or not, Trump’s pledge is shining a spotlight on a region that already faces serious environmental challenges but has also seen incredible work to resolve them—especially here in the arid, rugged Sky Islands region of southern Arizona and northern Sonora, where people are working to protect the land on both sides of the border, and sometimes across it.

It’s hard to imagine a landscape fragmented in more senses of the word than the Sky Islands. Here, the southern Rockies meet the northern end of Mexico’s Sierra Madre Occidental in a series of isolated mountain ranges surrounded by desert—with the vast Sonoran to the west and the Chihuahuan to the east. The entire eco-region is spread across four states in two countries (Arizona, New Mexico, Sonora and Chihuahua) and divided into a complex mix of protected and unprotected public and private lands.

This collision of mountains and desert has created a place of astonishing ecological richness, with habitats ranging from saguaro-studded plains to spruce-fir forests above 10,000 feet. The Sky Islands is the most biologically diverse part of the U.S.-Mexico border, home to half the bird species in North America during at least part of the year. The Coronado National Forest, which encompasses many of the ranges on the U.S. side, is the most biologically diverse national forest in the country, and also has the highest number of threatened and endangered species, including jaguars (Panthera onca), ocelots (Leopardus pardalis), and Mexican spotted owls (Strix occidentalis lucida).

“People have this idea of the border as a wasteland, a war zone,” says Valer Clark, who manages extensive properties on both sides of the border for the Cuenca de Los Ojos Foundation, a conservation group. “That isn’t the case at all. This is a very rich landscape. It’s a crucial place to preserve.”

But the threat of urban development only increases as the region’s human population grows.  In addition, dams, mines, ranches and farms have fragmented and degraded natural habitats throughout the region. As a result, most of its once-extensive wetlands, critical to migratory birds and other native species, are already gone. On top of that, the specter of climate change looms large over the arid region, disrupting rainfall patterns and contributing to more frequent and more intense wildfires. Add in illegal immigration and the booming cross-border drug trade, and you have a place that is as complex politically as it is ecologically.

Through the middle of it all, like the thread of a complicated plot, runs the international boundary. About a third of that line is already blocked by some kind of barrier, from barbed-wire fences and tall metal walls to “Normandy fencing” made from steel Xs that look like they’ve been pulled straight off a World War II beach. Most of the barriers are near cities and in places where illegal crossings are most likely to occur. That leaves the more remote, rugged stretches of the border still unfenced—for now.

The environmental impacts of the existing border barriers are mostly unknown, in large part because of how recently and quickly they were built. The Department of Homeland Security waived environmental laws when it put up most of the wall or fencing during a period of “border hardening” in the 2000s. Scientists didn’t have a chance to conduct baseline studies that would allow them to compare the movements of animals, and the overall health of ecosystems, before and after the barriers went up. Construction also included the building of hundreds of miles of access roads, which are known to affect wildlife mobility and cut through populations, especially those of large carnivores and herbivores. A 2014 study on the effects of border infrastructure in four protected areas in Arizona found that barriers curtailed the movement of mammals such as mountain lions (Puma concolor) and coatimundis (Nasua narica)—but had no measurable effect on people trying to cross the border illegally.

The barbed wire fence at the Rancho los Fresnos clearly was not a barrier to beavers. They likely followed the water that flows south from the Huachuca Mountains across the border, which, in a quirk of hydrological irony, merges with the flow from the ranch’s springs and joins the San Pedro River to flow back north into Arizona: two watery border crossings within a handful of miles.

The largest free-flowing river in the southwestern U.S., the San Pedro once teemed with so many beavers it was nicknamed the “Beaver River.” But by 1900, the species had been wiped out by hunters and trappers in search of pelts, and by ranchers and farmers who were frustrated by the animals’ penchant for diverting precious water.

In 1999, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) began reintroducing beavers in southern Arizona. Improving the landscape was part of the goal: Beaver dams help retain water through the dry season, encouraging the development of riparian areas and the water-dependent plants and wildlife they support. The project was a success, with hundreds of beaver ponds springing up north to the Gila River, and south across the border. The animals first showed up in Los Fresnos after a series of severe storms in 2008, Carreón says. “Everything around here flooded; then we started seeing gnawed tree trunks.” He estimates that three beaver families, each with four to five individuals, live on the property today.

Researchers from the U.S. Geological Survey and the University of Arizona found that the beavers’ environmental engineering has already had a measurable effect along the upper San Pedro. Places where the aquatic rodents colonized, including some sites in Los Fresnos, had a wider variety of birds and more of them, including threatened and endangered species like the Southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus). Clearing out large trees and creating ponds and marshes encourages new growth of trees and bushes at the water’s edge, which in turn attract insects and the birds that eat them. This transformation is particularly important along the San Pedro, which is used by more than 300 bird species during their migrations between North and South America. If there had been an impassible wall along the border, of course, the beavers would have stayed in the U.S. and none of this would have been possible.

Another species whose border crossings have been making news lately is the jaguar. The largest cat in the Western Hemisphere once ranged from Patagonia to the Grand Canyon. But by the 1960s, jaguars were largely gone from the U.S., killed by hunters and ranchers protecting livestock. The nearest breeding population was a small one in northern Sonora.

Lone male jaguars were killed by hunters in Arizona in 1971 and 1986. In 1996, a rancher named Warner Glenn was hunting mountain lions in New Mexico’s Peloncillo Mountains when his dogs treed a jaguar instead. He chose to shoot the cat with a camera instead of a rifle—the first time a jaguar had been left alive in the U.S. in decades.

Since then, more have been spotted north of the border, where they have received a decidedly mixed welcome. In 2009 a male jaguar, called “Macho B,” was trapped south of Tucson by a biologist working for the Arizona Game & Fish Department. Estimated to be 16 years old, Macho B was the oldest known wild jaguar, and had been documented on trail cameras crossing the border in both directions for five years.

The animal was sedated, radio-collared and released but eventually had to be recaptured when it became clear something was wrong. Veterinarians found the cat’s kidneys were failing, possibly from the sedative (a drug meant for bears). Eventually Macho B had to be euthanized. The public was outraged and the events became a major scandal, complete with accusations of agency misconduct and criminal prosecutions of whistleblowers.

Two years later another male, dubbed “El Jefe” (The Boss) by local school kids, showed up on trail cameras in the Santa Rita Mountains near Tucson. Wildlife biologist Chris Bugbee studied El Jefe for four years. Bugbee and his wife, Aletris Neils, also a biologist, run Conservation CATalyst, a small nonprofit dedicated to protecting wild cats, out of their home in Tucson.

el jefe jaguar
El Jefe. Photograph courtesy of University of Arizona and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Bugbee got to know the cat better than anyone. Sometimes El Jefe turned the tables. “I know he followed me,” Bugbee says. “More than once he was the first animal to appear on the camera traps after I left. Once it was only 16 minutes later.” After appearing in hundreds of trail camera images, El Jefe disappeared in late 2015. “He was behaving differently toward the end, staying out in the daylight,” Bugbee says. He thinks the cat probably returned to Mexico to breed.

Biologists like Bugbee and Neils think solo males like El Jefe and Macho B are dispersing north from a population of 125 to 150 animals in northern Sonora, searching for new territories, and possibly mates, at the fringes of their range. (This is one reason the Sky Islands region is so diverse; all these adjoining habitats bring together many species at the edge of their ranges—the biological equivalent of the cantina in Star Wars.) While the increase in sightings is partly because researchers are using more trail cameras, detecting animals they would have missed in the past, Bugbee says, it’s clear that jaguars are starting to push back north across the border. He, Neils, and other experts agree that Trump’s wall would mean the end of jaguars on the U.S. side.

“It’s absolutely essential that the jaguars in northern Mexico be able to expand their range and numbers, to build resilience in the population,” says Randy Serraglio of the Tucson-based Center for Biological Diversity (publisher of The Revelator). “They’re extremely vulnerable because they’re pinned into these small, fragmented areas.” Individuals who push out into new territories can be the most important of all to a species’ survival, he says. “Those are the pioneers who develop new skills, adapt to new habitats.”

Public support is overwhelmingly on the side of bringing the big cats back, Serraglio says. “All of Tucson went nuts when El Jefe became this rock star.” Yet conservationists have found themselves at odds with government agencies and interest groups representing ranchers and farmers, many of whom aren’t thrilled by the idea of bringing back a large predator. After the Macho B debacle, “jaguar recovery is a political nightmare for the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service,” Serraglio says. The Center has had to sue the agency to get the cats listed under the Endangered Species Act and to declare critical habitat for their survival and recovery as the law requires. The species was listed in 1997.

In March 2014, the Department of the Interior designated 3,092 square kilometers (764,207 acres) of southern Arizona and New Mexico as critical jaguar habitat. In response, the New Mexico Farm and Livestock Bureau and the New Mexico Cattle Growers’ Association filed suit, arguing the decision was “unlawful, arbitrary and capricious.” The key point of contention is whether jaguar habitat north of the border is critical to the species’ recovery. The Fish & Wildlife Service and Arizona Game & Fish Department have both argued that it isn’t, and that jaguar conservation efforts should instead be focused in Mexico.

In December 2016, the Fish & Wildlife Service and a bi-national Jaguar Recovery Team released a 508-page draft recovery plan that lays out a 50-year, $606 million strategy to bring the big cats back in all 19 countries they inhabit. It identifies an area including parts of Arizona, New Mexico and northern Mexico as one of two critical recovery zones—the other stretches from Mexico to Argentina—but doesn’t include reintroducing females into the U.S. Southwest. Neils says the opportunity to breed is critical. “Once we have a female here, I think we’ll have cats permanently.”

The existing border walls probably don’t affect jaguar movement much, Neils says, since they prefer to stick to higher-elevation routes where there currently aren’t any barriers. The irony is that the animals are already beginning to repopulate their historic range in the U.S. on their own, she says, compared to expensive species restoration projects that can drag on for years. “They’re solving the problem for us. We can bring them back for free, just by doing nothing!”

El Jefe himself likely came from a 55,000-acre reserve in northern Sonora owned by the nonprofit Northern Jaguar Project (NJP). In addition to managing the property, the group runs a program called Viviendo con Felinos (Living with Felines), which pays nearby landowners for every animal caught on trail cameras set up on their properties. A jaguar is worth 5,000 pesos, about $275. Other species are worth less, but each can pay off multiple times. In exchange, Viviendo also requires a pledge from participants not to harm wildlife on their properties bordering the reserve.

The program shows how it’s possible to shift landowners’ perspectives on jaguars, says Diana Hadley, NJP president. Ranchers often consider large predators a threat to their herds, but since the program began in 2003, Hadley says, there hasn’t been a single instance of a jaguar killing a cow or calf on any of the properties in Mexico. Meanwhile, the group has assembled what may be the longest continuous database of jaguar sightings, with hundreds of photos of more than 50 different cats. “There’s a waiting list to get into the program,” Hadley says. “The ranchers have been thrilled,” both by the payments and the sense of pride they get from having such a revered creature on their land. At Christmas, each rancher gets a photo book of “his” animals.

On a warm May evening, some of these photos began to appear as huge projected images on the rusty metal posts of the border fence separating Douglas, Arizona from Agua Prieta, Mexico. A 20-foot tall jaguar was replaced by a mountain lion, then an ocelot (Leopardus pardalis) —a smaller spotted cat—and finally a kit fox (Vulpes macrotis) with a bushy tail the size of a Subaru.

A small crowd milled on the American side under the gaze of officers in a Customs and Border Patrol truck idling under a pastel sunset. A similar crowd on the Mexican side was visible through the narrow gaps between the posts. People chatted through the fence as others played music and gave speeches.

Diana Hadley of the NJP, which organized the cross-border event, took the microphone. She explained that the images were all species whose movements are affected in some way by the existing wall. Then she introduced Diego Ezrré, one of 12 Mexican ranchers taking part in the Viviendo program. “The reserve is a great neighbor,” Ezrré said in Spanish. “Because there are more forest animals, we have less depredation by jaguars and pumas.”

“This is the first place we’ve had this exhibit,” Hadley said as stars began appearing overhead. “But I hope we can take it all the way across the border, from California to Texas.”

“To the White House!” called a voice from the crowd.

Some of the jaguars showing up in Arizona almost certainly passed through properties owned by the Cuenca de Los Ojos Foundation (CLO), which manages eleven ranches in the upper watershed of the Yaqui River: two in Arizona’s Chiricahua Mountains and nine in Sonora. The properties range from grasslands to desert to mountain woodlands. Together they harbor more than 25 species listed as threatened or endangered in the U.S.

Driving along Mexico Route 2 in a black pickup with tinted windows, David Hodges, the group’s director of conservation, points out slim white towers jutting from the hills across the border. They’re part of a new remote surveillance network. “Sometimes we see puntos, spotters, on the hills over here,” Hodges says. “They sit in pickup trucks with binoculars and radios, keeping an eye on the Border Patrol for the smugglers.”

The highway has no shoulder and is packed with semis. In the driver’s seat, José Manuel Pérez, CLO’s director of operations for Mexico, sips from a huge sweating soda cup. He turns off the highway at the Rancho San Bernardino, about 15 miles east of Agua Prieta. A desert cottontail bolts up the dirt road ahead of the truck, zigzagging in puffs of dust. The 60-square-kilometer (15,000-acre) ranch was in terrible condition when the foundation bought it in 2000, Hodges says. Previous owners had farmed and ranched it close to death, leaving behind deep arroyos and denuded hills infested with invasive weeds.

The Ciénega San Bernardino used to be the largest wetland in the region, an important stopover for migratory birds that covered thousands of acres. By the 1980s, however, it had shrunk to barely 20 hectares (50 acres).

Hodges rolls up his window as the truck approaches a group of white beehive boxes in the shade of a cottonwood. “They’re a little aggressive this time of year,” he says. The ranch is home to more than 325 species of bees and 240 species of butterflies, the most diverse populations in the world and North America, respectively.

Pérez stops the truck at Silver Creek, a tributary of the San Bernardino River. He walks through a thicket of thorny mesquite bushes to the dry creek bed. A few dozen yards downstream, a 5-foot dropoff cuts sharply across the sand. The ledge is formed by square wire cages, each about the size of a dishwasher and filled with rocks.

Valer Clark, a Manhattan-socialite-turned-conservationist, started buying properties in the Southwest 25 years ago. Through the foundation, she has poured decades of work and millions of dollars into bringing 607 square kilometers (150,000 acres) of damaged lands back to life, replanting native grasses and reintroducing native fish, deer and turkeys. But all this life needs water, so restoring natural flows has been a top priority.

The wire cages, called gabions in Spanish, are a low-tech and relatively inexpensive way to alter the flow of water without blocking it completely, Hodges explains. In the desert, soils laid bare by grazing and agriculture are washed away by summer monsoons. Precious water rushes through deep, narrow gullies without much soaking into the ground. Building ledges and berms out of gabions slows down the flow. Water lingers, meanders, and deposits sediment that fills in and widens the streambeds. With enough work and maintenance, eventually the streams start to look like what they used to be before human activity changed the landscape.

Clark and her employees have built thousands of gabions and small rock dams, called trincheras, on the foundation’s properties. Together with replanted vegetation like willows and cottonwoods, they have brought overgrazed and drought-stricken streams like this one back to life. “This has filled in twelve feet since Val started restoration work,” Hodges says.

Clark lives on El Coronado ranch, one of the properties in the Chiricahuas. After years of flow restoration, “now the mountains are weeping water after the rainy season,” she says. The hills are covered with grass again, and Coues deer, black bears, and Gould’s turkeys roam.

“This is a token effort,” Clark admits. “We’ve made one creek up here run.” But the water table at San Bernardino has risen 30 feet in the past eight years, compared to other places nearby where it has fallen hundreds of feet. The wetlands have expanded, and bird and mammal populations are rising.

A few hundred yards up the streambed, a vehicle barrier marks the international boundary. (San Bernardino has 35 miles of border forming its northern edge.) Illegal border crossings have slowed dramatically here in recent years, Hodges says, because of increased security as well as the improving Mexican economy. “Jobs that used to pay 10 times as much in the U.S. now only pay three times as much,” he says. “The wall never worked anyhow—it was basically a speed bump.”

On the opposite side of the fence is the San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge, whose main objective is protecting threatened desert fish like the Yaqui chub (Gila purpurea) and the Yaqui beautiful shiner (Cyprinella formosa). Though it’s only a few steps away from where we stand, to get from there to the ranch legally requires driving west on Geromino Trail to Douglas, passing through the checkpoint to Agua Prieta, and then back east on Route 2. On a good day, it takes an hour.

The existing border wall is already a major impediment to international conservation efforts, says refuge manager Bill Radke. Regulations have tightened and cross-border travel is more difficult for government employees. “There was a time when you could just walk across the border and measure stuff, but times have changed,” he says. “Now what would have taken an hour takes a day.” Nonetheless, “if you’re suddenly faced with a landscape that’s being divided, barricaded, fragmented, it does force you to think of options and partners you might not have thought of.”

The refuge has coordinated with CLO to share data on erosion control, ground water levels, and fish and bird populations. When the refuge had to thin out cottonwoods and willows for security reasons, they dug them up and handed them across the fence to workers at San Bernardino, where there were replanted. Some they simply tossed in the river and let them float across.

This fall, CLO will launch the Great Southwest Corridor initiative, to ensure that cross-border wildlife routes in the Sky Islands region remain intact and functioning. While the program predates Trump’s wall plans, according to CLO’s Hodges, it is a response to “longer-term political uncertainty” related to how the border is secured. Potential partners include conservation groups like The Nature Conservancy, the Sierra Club, and Defenders of Wildlife, as well as private U.S. landowners and Native American tribes.

“We’re at a very important point right now,” says Gerardo Carreón of Naturalia, another CLO partner. “People on both sides of the border are coming together and saying, ‘We have to do something.’”

Nonetheless, back in March the Department of Homeland Security started soliciting design prototypes that were both “aesthetically pleasing” and “physically imposing.” (The president himself has suggested the wall could be transparent and/or covered with solar panels. He has also backed away from his initial promise of a nearly 2,000-mile-long wall, suggesting it might be just 700 miles long.)

In Texas, New Mexico, and California, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has begun drilling and collecting soil samples in preparation for construction. Engineers hired by the Customs and Border Patrol have begun surveying and clearing land for a new wall and two parallel access roads in the Rio Grande Valley of south Texas. Some of the surveys have crossed private land and important wildlife refuges, prompting protests.

Paying for the wall is still very much under debate. In July, the House Appropriations Committee approved spending bills that include $1.6 billion to construct additional wall and fencing along 74 miles of the border. But Senate Democrats have promised to block the funding, and so far, Mexico’s president Enrique Peña Nieto has flatly refused Trump’s request to pay for any part of it. At a rally in August, Trump threatened to shut down the U.S. government if necessary to secure the funding.

In the meantime, animals keep finding their way across. In March, a female Mexican gray wolf was photographed near Chiricahua National Monument in southeast Arizona. It was the first documented wolf from Mexico since reintroduction efforts began there more than two decades ago, Hodges says, and the wolf, like the jaguars, came from and crossed the border on Cuence de los Ojos lands.

And late last year, two new jaguars also showed up in southern Arizona. One was on the Fort Huachuca military reservation near Sierra Vista. Students on the nearby Pascua Yaqui Reservation named it “Yo’oko Nashuareo,” the Yaqui word for jaguar. The other was spotted in the Dos Cabezas Mountains near Wilcox, almost 100 miles north of the border, the farthest north a jaguar has appeared in decades.

border wall
Border wall in the San Pedro River valley in Arizona, USA. Krista Schyler

Previously in The Revelator:

Killer Whales Face Killer Toxins

Southern Resident killer whales have a shortage of food and an overdose of deadly pollutants.

The first time I saw wild killer whales, I was sitting on an upturned plastic bucket in a small Boston Whaler, cruising around the Salish Sea in the Pacific Northwest.

It was a cool, drizzly morning last October. At the wheel was cetacean expert Deborah Giles of the Center for Whale Research, located on Washington state’s San Juan Island. As we travelled along the island’s coasts, I could see the killer whales’ tall dorsal fins gracefully bobbing like black triangular sails, and slick flukes slipping beneath the calm waves. And of course I saw the whales’ faces, with their characteristic black-and-white grins and dark eyes, which curiously examined our boat.

In four hours Giles and I spotted 15 killer whales, ten of which belonged to an endangered population of about 80 whales in three pods known as the “Southern Residents” and five that belonged to a group of about 150 non-endangered “transients.” Southern Resident killer whales aren’t a separate subspecies but they are genetically and culturally distinct from other killer whale populations.

Most notably, they eat fish, while transients eat marine mammals like seals, walruses and other whales. In the past both populations were healthy, but in recent decades this food preference has led to the Southern Resident’s near-demise, with a more than 60 percent population drop since the late 1800s. In fact a recent report on the Southern Resident population has shown the killer whales’ birthrates have plunged, with 69 percent of pregnancies failing, most likely due to diminished populations of endangered Chinook salmon but also perhaps toxins in the few salmon that they manage to find and eat.

“There is little doubt that a limited supply of salmon is central to the problem,” said Samuel Wasser of the University of Washington, lead author of the study. “That said…its impacts are compounded by toxins stored in fat, bio-accumulated over the animals’ lifetimes. Food stress burns fat, releasing the toxins into circulation where they can do the most damage. Even here though, food stress is the trigger.”

Canada declared the Southern Residents endangered in 2001, and the United States followed suit in 2005, citing limited food supply, boat traffic and marine pollutants such as flame-retardants, pesticides and industrial solvents as major threats to the population. In his most recently published study, Wasser and his team of researchers at the University of Washington studied these factors and their health consequences for the Southern Residents between 2008 and 2014 by running endocrine tests on killer whale feces they found out on the Salish Sea. The team had unusual assistants help collect those samples: specially trained detection dogs that lay on the bow of research vessels and alert their human handlers of whales and whale feces, which the human handlers scoop up and bring into the ship.

When I visited San Juan Island, I met one of the detection dogs — an amiable black Labrador retriever named Tucker — and his handler, Elizabeth Seely of Conservation Canines at the Center for Conservation Biology at the University of Washington. Seely described the process of using to find a dog to find whale feces as “looking for a needle in a haystack but the haystack is constantly moving.” She said she watches Tucker and uses hand signals to instruct the boat’s driver, often Giles, to steer into the wind when Tucker begins acting excited — a sign he’s picked up a scent. Giles must watch Seely, the wind, the water and the whales in order to get close enough to scoop up the feces, but not close enough to startle the whale it came from.

Besides running fecal samples, the researchers counted, identified and assessed the nutritional status of whales visually. “Peanut head,” the name for the physical condition where a killer whale’s head becomes concave around the blowhole, is a sign of starvation, as is visibility of a whale’s ribcage, slanted eyes (indicative of a narrow face) and stunted growth. Use of drones has allowed scientists to easily detect some of these visible signs of starvation in whales from above.

According to experts, the reason for the starvation in the Southern Residents is most definitely a lack of salmon, which make up the largest and most nutritious part of their diet. Wasser and his fellow researchers found that levels of thyroid hormones were lowest in the Southern Resident whales following known drops in Chinook salmon from the Fraser River, while increases in salmon in the river were associated with increases in thyroid hormone levels.

In the past 10 years, salmon — particularly those spawning in the Columbia River — have decreased. While that’s certain, Wasser said what’s not well understood is why their numbers are dropping. Overfishing and habitat loss due to development could play a role in the fish’s demise. However, it appears more likely that the construction of hydroelectric dams on rivers where salmon spawn and migrate are to blame.

“Some say dams are key, including the Snake River dam, which impacts levels of early spring Chinook, some of the fattiest fish known and essential to replenish whales from the harsh winter and sustain them until the Fraser River Chinook run peaks in the summer,” said Wasser.

Giles takes a stronger personal stance when it comes to discussing the threats to survival the Southern Residents face. She said it’s clear that fishing restrictions and dam removal are necessary in order to replenish salmon and killer whale populations in the Pacific Northwest. But making her voice heard has been something she’s been criticized for doing as a scientist.

“I won’t stop telling the truth about what’s happening just because it’s politically ‘incorrect’ or unpopular,” said Giles. “We need to take action now or we’ll lose these genetically and culturally distinct whales forever.”

© 2017 Erica Cirino. All rights reserved.

Christmas Island Bat, Last Seen in 2009, Confirmed Extinct

Extensive searches for this tiny microbat have failed to locate any survivors. The exact cause of its extinction remains unknown.

The news came eight years too late.

This week the IUCN announced that the Christmas Island pipistrelle bat (Pipistrellus murrayi) had officially been declared extinct.

This, sadly, was not exactly news to those who have followed this species. I wrote about the pipistrelle bat three times in 2009, a critical year when conservationists struggled in vain to prevent the species’ extinction.

Here’s what I wrote in February, 2009:

It’s been a rough few years for this tiny Australian microbat. Once fairly common on its home island, populations have dropped dramatically in the last decade, first to 100 bats in 1994, then to 54 three years ago. Today, according to Lindy Lumsden, a research scientist at Australia’s Department of Sustainability and Environment, there may be just 20 left. Lumsden now warns the Christmas Island pipistrelle may be extinct in as little as six months if the current rate of decline continues.

At the time, Lumsden proposed collecting the last 20 bats from the wild and breeding them in captivity in order to prevent their extinction.

That didn’t happen, as I wrote three months later:

An attempt to capture and breed bats from a similar species has, so far, failed. The bats have proven to be almost impossible to catch, and even harder to keep alive. Just two bats were captured, but one has since died.

By that time, experts worried that the Christmas Island species had already fallen to just four individuals.

Then, in September, Lumsden’s six-month extinction prediction proved accurate and all hope appeared to be lost:

Eight scientists, along with volunteers from the Australasian Bat Society, spent the last four weeks on Christmas Island…but were unable to capture a single bat.

Now, eight years later, conservationists have finally given up on the Christmas Island pipistrelle. According to the species’ listing on the IUCN Red List, the last known bat of its kind “disappeared on 27 August 2009 and no individuals have been located since, despite extensive searching using proven techniques.”

So what caused this extinction? No one knows for sure, although we have a few clues. Christmas Island, an Australian territory in the Indian Ocean, faces numerous ecological problems which have affected both the bat and other native species and have caused at least one other likely extinction. According to an IUCN press release, the pipistrelle’s extinction “may have been a combination of increased predation by introduced species, impacts of invasive Yellow Crazy Ant (Anoplolepis gracilipes) on its habitat and on its invertebrate prey species, or possibly an unknown disease.”

It’s actually fairly rare to see extinctions happen as visibly as with the Christmas Island pipistrelle. Perhaps its disappearance — and now its confirmed extinction — can serve as a warning to help protect other rare species before it becomes too late to save them.

Also in The Revelator:

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

After 30 Years, the Montreal Protocol Is Paying Ozone Dividends

September 16 marks the anniversary of perhaps the most successful achievement in environmental policy.

On rare but breathtaking occasions, waves of opalescent clouds paint the twilight Antarctic sky in a mix of pastel hues. These “nacreous” clouds float at freezing stratospheric altitudes, where they mingle with the ozone layer and intense sunlight.

But that same sunlight that produces this spectacle also mixes with something less natural and less beautiful. When the sun’s unfiltered UV rays hit human-generated chlorofluorocarbons high in the stratosphere, they initiate a chemical reaction that cascades through those clouds and turns ozone into regular oxygen, weakening and depleting the ozone layer.

Because the ozone layer shades all life on earth from the most intense and carcinogenic UV radiation, our health and well-being depend on its integrity. Three decades ago this month, the world came together in the layer’s defense and formed the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.  Today, the true benefit of that agreement is just starting to make itself known, thanks to a process that was set in motion by a bold and disruptive theory.

Theoretical Beginnings

As the son of a mathematics professor, Sherry Rowland was drawn to numbers and surrounded by books from a young age. Being somewhat precocious, he sailed quickly through his early education in central Ohio and began high school in 1939 at the age of 12.

During Sherry’s adolescent summers, his high school science teacher entrusted him to manage the local weather station, where he collected data on local temperatures and precipitation. During those summers in the early 1940s, the influence of his work on the global atmosphere several decades later must have been far from his active imagination.

Sherry would be more widely known as F. Sherwood Rowland by the time he became chair of the chemistry department at U.C. Irvine in 1964. There he crossed paths with Mario Molina, a recent PhD graduate with expertise in photochemistry. Aided by Molina and invigorated with a desire to explore new avenues of research, Sherry Rowland shifted his attention back to the sky.

It had been just reported that nitrogen oxide compounds degrade under stratospheric conditions and affect the chemistry of the ozone layer. Being aware that human-generated chlorofluorocarbons were accumulating in the atmosphere, Rowland and Molina wondered if those compounds might also affect the ozone layer. They worked out the chemistry and found that chlorofluorocarbons would also theoretically degrade, and then release ozone-depleting chlorine. This chemistry and its potential implications were laid out for the first time by the duo in a 1974 report published in the journal Nature.

The Cold Backlash

Chlorofluorocarbons (also known as CFCs, or as Freon and other trade names) were first synthesized for refrigeration in 1928 — the year after Rowland was born. Because they were not only effective but also stable, nontoxic and nonflammable, they quickly replaced more hazardous 19th-century refrigerants. This enabled refrigeration technology to become more domesticated during the 1930s.

The availability of safe automotive and home air conditioning spurred the expansion of post-war suburbia. Air conditioning and refrigeration became all but ubiquitous in the developed world by the 1970s, and the CFC industry sat profitably on the crest of that wave.

Although the public knew very little about CFCs at the time, and even less about the layer of stratospheric ozone that was incidentally at risk, corporate resistance to Rowland and Molina’s 1974 report was swift and severe.

DuPont, the leading manufacturer of CFCs, responded on June 30 the following year with a full-page advertisement in The New York Times in which the company argued that it was too soon to be drawing any conclusions about the CFC-ozone theory. Regarding that theory, the ad proclaimed, “Hypothesis lacks support. Claim meets counterclaim. Assumptions are challenged on both sides. And nothing is settled.” DuPont’s well-financed public relations campaign continued promoting this narrative over the next decade.

Support from the scientific community for the CFC-ozone theory did not come immediately. It was no small claim to be made, and as Rowland and Molina’s contemporary Carl Sagan frequently said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Rowland was nevertheless convinced and concerned, and he felt compelled to put his reputation on the line and promote the theory publicly.

Fortunately, supporting evidence for the theory had been quietly accumulating for nearly two decades at a research station off the coast of Antarctica.

Extraordinary Evidence

As the Cold War was building in the 1950s, the United States, Soviet Union and eventually 65 other countries came to an agreement to allow scientific collaboration across political boundaries in the field of geophysics. This resulted in a flurry of research projects that began circa 1957 as part of what became known as “The International Geophysical Year.”

Many of those projects took place in Antarctica, including efforts to record the first continuous measurements of ozone levels in the earth’s atmosphere. By the 1980s, these measurements had begun to show a clear decline in atmospheric ozone. A 1985 scientific report was published in Nature that presented this data and demonstrated how the decline could be explained by increases in atmospheric chlorine.

That same year, NASA released the first satellite image of the ozone layer, including the lack thereof above Antarctica. This provided a stunning picture in color of what was suggested in data, and it gave rise to the phrase “ozone hole.“ Meanwhile, other support poured in independently from several academic and government studies, which cohered a consensus that paved the way for action.

From Vienna to Montreal

The year 1985 was also an inflection point for the political process. The first international talks on ozone depletion began that year at the Vienna Convention, coordinated by the United Nations. Meanwhile, DuPont and the CFC industry continued to dispute the science and campaign against regulations until it became apparent that CFCs could be economically replaced by other refrigerants that were more ozone-friendly.

Within the next two years, the discussions shifted in favor of gradually phasing out CFCs and other ozone-depleting chemicals, and a plan was put in ink. The proposed regulations on CFCs had bipartisan support in the United States under the Regan administration. Leaders from 24 nations signed on to the agreement in Montreal on September 16, 1987, and the Montreal Protocol went into effect on New Year’s Day 1989.

Eventually, the list of participants in the Montreal Protocol expanded to include 197 nations — practically every sovereign state in the world. It was the first treaty to ever receive universal ratification from every U.N. nation, and Kofi Annan later declared it “perhaps the single most successful international agreement to date.” Global CFC production was phased out by 2010 in accordance with the protocol.

Through all of this, Rowland remained actively involved in the science as well as the political process. Within 20 years, he went from an academic voice in the wilderness to a Nobel Prize recipient, alongside Mario Molina and atmospheric chemist Paul Crutzen.

Slowly Reversing the Trend

Scientists expect that CFCs from decades past will remain in the atmosphere for decades to come before they finally degrade. The ozone hole, consequently, is a wound that has not yet healed, and will only do so slowly.

But already, there is evidence that it is on the mend.

cfc

During the last few years, Antarctic ozone measurements have begun tilting upward, as CFC measurements have begun to drop. Although ozone levels are naturally variable and temperature-dependent, the general trend appears to be reversing.

It is difficult to know the full impact of the Montreal Protocol on human health and the environment. But recent estimates suggest that by 2013, the Antarctic ozone hole would have been 40 percent larger, and by 2030 skin cancer rates worldwide would have increased 14 percent.

What we do know is that human activity can have a global impact on the environment. But we also know that what mankind is capable of destroying, mankind is capable of repairing when resources are shared, and science and policy work patiently together. The 30-year history of the Montreal Protocol and the series of events that preceded it, now prove that.

© 2017 Robert Lawrence. All rights reserved.

A Troubling Take on Extinction

A new book argues, unconvincingly, that biodiversity is actually increasing.

From the first page of his new book, Inheritors of the Earth: How Nature Is Thriving in the Age of Extinction (PublicAffairs Books, $28), conservation biologist Chris D. Thomas makes his conclusion pretty clear: The alarm over species going extinct thousands of times faster than the normal background rate is being blown out of proportion. Biodiversity, Thomas asserts, is not disappearing like biologists and environmentalists warn; it’s increasing.

inheritors of the earthThat growth in biodiversity, Thomas writes, hinges on speciation, which is the evolution of new, distinct species. It’s happening much more quickly than biologists previously thought — mostly through migration and subsequent diversification and hybridization of existing species into new, distinct species. According to Thomas, this rapid speciation is good news.

In making his argument, Thomas spends page upon page on stories and “evidence” proving species diversity is growing. He cites sparrows frequently, noting that a small bird from the Asian steppe has become ubiquitous around the world. He notes that the Monterey pine, struggling in its native California, is thriving in New Zealand’s forestry efforts, while monarch butterflies that used to depend on those pines now over-winter on blue gum trees, a type of eucalyptus native to Tasmania generally considered invasive by environmentalists. Yet, Thomas claims, the blue gum tree is a more suitable tree for the monarch, a species also threatened with extinction. He suggests that the tree is an invasive species that will save America’s most iconic butterfly. And, coming off strongly as an English gentleman scientist, Thomas cites his own garden and the change in diversity over the years has grown from just a few species of butterfly, birds and plants to more than a dozen newcomers, with over a third of the species there now only able to thrive because of man-made changes.

But there’s a big piece of the equation he fails to mention.

Thomas leaves out the population sizes of all these species, new or old. While diversity is important, the number of individual animals in a population is also essential in determining how likely a species will survive threats such as natural disasters and climate change. Technically we still have northern white rhinos, Yangtze River dolphins and Pinta Island tortoises, but their populations are so small they are functionally extinct. We can’t write off the extinction crisis based on species diversity until we do a critter census.

But that wasn’t the biggest weakness of Inheritors. It was Thomas’s assessment of humans and our role in the equation.

As a part of nature, he argues, everything we have done, all of our colossal, Earth-changing influence, is “natural.” Climate change, the introduction and the distribution of invasive species around the planet, extinction, the transformation of land from wild to cultivated — the whole shebang — is what Thomas calls “natural.” He claims humans shouldn’t be blamed for our part in creating this new “natural” system. Rather we should be thanked. The extinction of odd, specialized island birds or the occasional photogenic megafauna kicking the bucket is just part of that transformation.

Near the end of the book Thomas almost had me agreeing with him. “The inevitable ups and downs of different species that take place when the environment changes, and as they colonize new locations and evolve new characteristics, dictate that we will ultimately fail if we attempt to keep things exactly, or even roughly, as they are,” he argues.

To his credit, Thomas isn’t saying that these ups and downs have all been to the betterment of the planet or the species we share it with. He doesn’t argue that environmentalists should just all give up and go home, but rather that we need to reevaluate how we’re trying to save the world and, more importantly, what we’re trying to save.

As someone newer to the environmental movement, I found the argument enticing. I wanted to agree with him. After all, who are we to decide what species come or go? More to the point, do we fight to protect species that are important to an ecosystem, or do we just ensure an ecosystem survives — filling the hole with whatever fits?

But humans don’t get a “get out of jail free card” just because we’re such a “successful” species. That’s why I have to disagree with Thomas’s follow-up to the previous statement: “We need a conservation philosophy that is based on natural change, with humans centre stage: partly because we have already brought about so many changes to the world that cannot be ignored, and partly because humans evolved naturally and we are part of the natural system.”

Species are worth protecting not just because they serve important functions in their ecosystems. They’re worth protecting because they have unique intrinsic value.

No bacterium thought about how creating oxygen might affect its fellow early earthlings; nor could it do anything to change that. Cataclysmic seismology or a stray asteroid are even less likely to have thought about the literal impact of their actions. And no matter how ubiquitous the little bird from the Asian steppe has become, no sparrow thinks about its place in the natural order.

People do.

That’s exactly Thomas’s logical flaw. Calling human-caused change “natural” is dangerously reductive. Both in scope and speed, people are altering the planet in ways no other species does. We have changed the very chemistry of the Earth. We’re driving the extinction crisis.

We can’t go back to some perfect Earth, unaffected by our kind. There isn’t evidence that that would be ideal anyway. But we have to fight to preserve species the way they are, not just because they serve their ecosystems but because they have value, as they are, altered or unaltered, but not purposefully tinkered with for our selfish purposes.

Despite Thomas’s arguments otherwise, it’s clear that the real inheritors of the Earth — and therefore the ones who have to step up to save it — are humans.

Life in the Trumpocene

We have to work together to solve climate change and other environmental problems, says author David Biello.

Author David Biello has an idea to get President Trump to take action on climate change.

“We should rename this current era the Trumpocene,” he says. “It’s pretty much the same as what we now call the Anthropocene, because it’s an old white dude ruining the world, but if we rename it he might actually pay attention to some of these challenges. When you put his name on something, he seems to care a lot more.”

Biello, formerly the environmental editor at Scientific American, knows a thing or two about the Anthropocene. His book about climate change, The Unnatural World: The Race to Remake Civilization in Earth’s Newest Age, came out last year just after the presidential election. Biello traveled the world to gather stories for the book, which examines both the history of our current environmental decline and the hard work of the people trying to reverse it.

Both the book and Biello himself are more optimistic than you might expect in this era of political strife, extinction and climate change. “One thing I would say about the despair versus hope conundrum is that hope is a place of inspiration and action,” he says. “Frankly, things can always get worse, so hope is always an option. Just taking the example of climate change or species extinction, if we can’t stop a temperature rise of one degree Celsius, we can still stop at 2 degrees Celsius. If we can’t save one species of rhino maybe we can save another species of rhino, or if we can’t save the rhinos at all maybe we can save the elephants. So there’s always room for hope.”

He says that’s an important message in today’s increasingly negative media environment. “Unfortunately, in my experience and from what I’ve seen in the world, despair just tends to have people throw up their hands and go eat a hamburger or whatever it might be because you really feel powerless to do anything.”

Interestingly enough, Biello feels that the despair many people feel from the current administration’s policies have actually become a motivating factor for positive change.

“Let’s be honest, if Hillary Clinton was president, folks would be a lot more sanguine about action on climate change, action to stave off species extinction, and action on social justice,” he says. “You name it, people would be a little bit more accepting of the status quo. So in a way, the election of Trump has served as a wake-up call that these things aren’t going to change on their own, that if we want to see them, if we want action on climate change, if we want to save our fellow travelers on this little blue orb in the vastness of space, we have to actually take action. We have to do things.”

That drive for action, Biello says, started happening almost immediately after the election. “People are more energized than at any point that I’ve directly experienced,” he says. “I’ve been reporting on climate change since the 1990s, and so folks have always been like, ‘yeah, yeah, we should do something about that,’ but without any sense of urgency. That has changed with the election. We saw a March for Science, which was an incredible thing. That, as far as I know, has never happened before, and people are getting involved in local politics.”

That, he adds, is the most important thing right now. “People are always asking me, what’s the number-one technology for solving climate change or the extinction crisis? They’re expecting me to say something like genetic engineering or artificial trees to suck CO2 out of the sky. But the number one thing to solve any of these kinds of interlocking problems of the Anthropocene is politics and the collective act of getting together and making some better decisions as a society.”

He continues, “We can’t go it alone. You as an individual are not going to buy your way to a better Anthropocene. You have to come together at the societal level to build this better world. I can’t do it alone, you can’t do it alone. Neither can anyone else. We have to come together in the hard but necessary work of politics to get these problems resolved and to build a better Trumpocene.”

Previously in The Revelator:

Drawdown: 100 Powerful (and Sometimes Surprising) Solutions to Global Warming