Big Oil Could Threaten Biodiversity in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

Drilling would also harm the cultural and religious core of the Gwich’in people.

Buried in the recently proposed congressional budget for 2018 is a partially cleared path for oil and gas drilling in one of North America’s last truly wild environments: the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

If passed, the budget would allow the House Natural Resources Committee to permit fossil fuel development in an untamed, 20-million-acre wildlife sanctuary that’s historically been off limits to human activity. The budget says drilling in the refuge is projected to raise $1.8 billion.

The budget follows Interior Secretary Ryan Zink’s proclamation last May that Alaska is “open for business.”

The Arctic refuge is not just huge and pristine — it’s also home to a vast array of species that live only in the Far North. Polar bears, Arctic wolves, foxes, wolverines, moose, musk oxen and porcupine caribou all live and breed in this territory. The coastal plain is home to some 200 species of birds that raise their young in the area before migrating around the world, including all 50 states in America.

And it has another resource, too: about 17 billion barrels of oil and 34 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, according to a 1980 U.S. Geological Survey.

Alaskan wildlife biologists like Ken Whitten, retired from Alaska Department of Fish and Game, are worried that oil drilling in the refuge will disrupt the breeding grounds and movement patterns of the native creatures there, as it did to the caribou living in the 100-mile-wide coastal plain around Prudhoe Bay. For 25 years Whitten studied the relationship between the caribou and the surrounding oil wells, drills and instances of human activity. “Caribou would tend to stay away from the equipment a distance of one to three miles,” he says. Deterred by the strange noises, structures and smells associated with oil mining, the caribou were forced east.

“If we were to experience the same sort of displacement it would drive the caribou to areas with a higher density of predators,” says Whitten. “We concluded that a displacement similar to what happened around Prudhoe Bay would have an effect of a 5-8 percent decline in calf survival. It doesn’t sound like much, but it would result in population decline. And the caribous aren’t the only species to have their habitat compressed.”

This debate over whether or not to drill for oil in such an unspoiled and ecologically important swath of land has been in the discourse for several decades, since Dwight D. Eisenhower laid out the initial protections for the refuge. But today, with the ticking clock of climate change and Trump and EPA head Scott Pruitt seemingly hell-bent on environmental deregulation and cozying up to fossil fuel interests, the debate has reached new levels of intensity.

Organization and individuals are speaking out about this issue, seemingly louder than ever. Even people that never have, and never will, set foot in the Arctic wilderness understand the importance of decoupling it from industry. And one environmental educator, Miho Aida, who actually has been to the refuge, understands a side to the story beyond its effect on wildlife: the human impact.

“Environmental issues are human rights issues,” she says.

Aida is a Japanese-American environmental scientist, educator and filmmaker who recently spent three weeks in the refuge with the Indigenous Gwich’in people, who, in many ways, would be the most affected by development in the area. She’s returned to the contiguous states with a short documentary she shot and produced called “The Sacred Place Where Life Begins: Gwich’in Women Speak.”

“I wanted to draw a connection to how these Gwich’in people are associated with the environment, the animals, the history,” Aida tells me while on tour with the film. “Development of the land would be devastating to them.”

The Gwich’in people are thought to be the area’s original inhabitants. “They were there first, they know every plant and animal,” says Aida.

And their livelihood depends on every plant and animal. According to Aida, when she arrived in the Arctic Village, a settlement right on the edge of the refuge, she felt she was in a different country. She observed that people there spoke in their native tongue on radios, tribal societal structures were recognized, and hunting and fishing was their way of life, as it had been for centuries.

The reason why the Gwich’in people oppose oil drilling in the area — although the prospect might bring them jobs — is twofold, but both deal with their intimate connection to the land.

Primarily, the coastal plain is the main breeding ground for the Gwich’in people’s main source of sustenance: the porcupine caribou (Rangifer tarandus granti). Herds of caribou raise their young near the ocean, because the strong winds keep away mosquitos, which can prove fatal to a caribou calf. Oil and natural gas drilling would surely affect their habitat, yet exactly how is unclear. But what is known is that if the caribou start to get displaced, so do the 2,000 or so Gwich’in people.

“It’s why they protect the land. It’s their lifeline,” says Aida. “Indigenous people have been fighting this kind of aggression for 500 years. These people are so resilient.”

The second reason the Gwich’in people are prepared to fight against the White House’s renewed interest in drilling in the Arctic, as they have done in the past, has to do with religion. To the Gwich’in people, the land is sacred and deeply tied to their ancestral roots, their culture, ideology, and values. Most of their songs and stories are about the caribou.

“It’s where everything came from for them,” says Aida. “It’s taboo for the Gwich’in people to go there, let alone oil crews.”

“The caribou herd and the Gwich’in are one,” says Bernadette Demientieff, executive director of the Fairbanks based Gwich’in Steering Committee. “We have made a pact with them 20,000 years ago to always take care of them if they take care of us.”

Demientieff has spent most of her career rallying the 14 communities of the Gwich’in Nation around this issue, raising awareness across the state, and putting pressure on Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a pro-development Republican.

“Drilling in such a sensitive place would be a big disaster,” says Demientieff, who feels her people’s food security is threatened under the new administration.

During one of her last afternoons in the Arctic with the Gwich’in people, Aida searched the horizon for caribou and moose with some tribal elders. She remarked to them about how stunningly quiet and beautiful the landscape was before them.

“It was so remote there,” says Aida. “Not even a road in sight.”

The elders described to her a time in their tribe’s history when the same landscape was buzzing with life, aloud with the activity of insects, mammals and birds. That was in the early 1800s before French trappers came, hunted, and “poisoned the land,” which had a lasting effect on many species there.

Now visitors have to strain to hear signs of life, and if oil interests gain a foothold in the area, it may prove difficult to see signs of life there too.

Demientieff can attest to this, as she says that she’s observed animals like polar bears, caribou and migratory birds moving farther south because of oil development in the coastal plains around Prudhoe Bay.

“Our animals are acting very strange,” says Demientieff. “And we’re losing our identity, but we’re prepared to fight for our way of life. It’s not up for negotiation.”

© 2017 Francis Flisiuk. All rights reserved.

Previously in The Revelator:

Hilcorp Alaska Avoids Fines for Cook Inlet Methane Leak

Further Reading: Arctic Ocean Drilling: Risking Oil Spills, Human Life, and Wildlife

Great Lakes Gray Wolves Regain Protection

The federal Court of Appeals this week reinstated Endangered Species Act protection for the gray wolf populations in the Great Lakes region, vacating a previous decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The court ruling says the previous decision did not take into account the potential impact on other wolf populations, a decision which could have implications for other species sub-populations or “distinct population segments” which have similarly lost protections.

Moving Past the Illusion of Control

The author of the Southern Reach Trilogy and “Borne” examines “life in the broken places.”

Jeff VanderMeer’s novella “Strange Bird: A Borne Story” is released in e-book form today.

What comes next for us — and for the planet? It’s a question being asked by anyone realistic about climate change and habitat loss. Fiction writers can’t escape it any more than scientists, and I’ve been exploring these issues since the late 1980s. Except now it seems to me that our relationship to nature occurs as much in what we think of as failed places or cities that contain landscapes we render invisible rather than think about what we’ve lost there.

For this very reason, my new post-apocalyptic novel “Borne” contains numerous themes about ecology and our relationship to nature in our modern urban settings. I’ve been calling this a book about “life in the broken places,” which admits to how much we’ve changed the planet while also acknowledging that, despite this, life continues to survive even in very devastated settings.

That acknowledgment is very important because you can easily miss the biodiversity and adaptation that can be found in places we don’t consider wilderness. Ignoring this fact seems to indicate a lack of empathy and yet another turning away — not just from nature but from our fellow human beings. Treating or making such places invisible allows even more harm to be perpetrated against all who live there. Even the false idea that deserts are lifeless results in projects such as covering miles of desert with solar panels and truly rendering them wasteland.

I thought about these ideas even in terms of where I live in Tallahassee, Florida, which has a Tree City USA designation despite being a fair-sized town of over 250,000 people. Similarly, I live pretty close to I-10, which has green strips of natural-looking land on either side but is a slaughter zone for animals trying to cross the highway. The polluted stream located one street behind our house creates a further greenway, even as it goes through water-treatment holding ponds in which I have seen animals such as a wayward beaver or muskrat, building homes from branches, and wood storks, which are a threatened species.

All of these spaces teem with life; throughout them all the birds and mammals and fish and frogs and lizards are trying to get by, despite these obstacles. Even as the holding pond is razed by the property owners every season, not always for good reason, and lies lifeless, soon enough the vegetation grows back and the animals return, too.

My earlier Southern Reach Trilogy was about layering a seething and tangled natural landscape that infringes upon the characters and reader — with the animal life kind of lurking in the vegetation — but in “Borne” I wanted the animals to stand out in stark relief, in the context of a failed city that must reinvent itself and forge new relationships between people and animals. All this other life has its own narratives, its own story to tell, one that intersects with the human but is not always beholden to the human.

All too often, we want to only see animal life for how it can be of use to us or be commodified, without acknowledging that animals have purpose that is theirs and theirs alone. Until we learn that lesson, we will continue to threaten our own continued existence on this planet; nor, it seems, do we recognize that a species could usurp our place with or without sentience, given the changes to our physical environment.

We also often seem to have encoded in our DNA or our belief systems something that makes us treat our planet as if we were alien settlers under the sway of a corrupting Manifest Destiny, almost as if we’re here to make Earth conform to some demented vision of a lost home world that is an industrial wasteland.

This is the idea that we must bend the world to our will instead of bend to it or find some compromise. It’s a kind of death wish sublimated into all kinds of rationalizations for the value of business and corporate extraction of natural resources, among other manifestations. Often, we ignore the hidden cost of traditional business in establishing so-called best-practices and in doing so create a myth of efficiency on the back of ecological destruction. In fact, we are incredibly inefficient, if the business world’s standards were applied in an objective way.

As a result, whole areas of study such as biomimicry, which we must pursue much more seriously, have not gotten as far as they would have if we had the imagination and drive to more passionately pursue them. If we could create systems that are more organic and coexist with the biosphere — that in fact reflect the biosphere’s richness and complexity — we would be much better off. Creating packing material from mushrooms to replace Styrofoam is just one small example: you just toss it in your backyard and it biodegrades in a few weeks. Some scientists are laughed at for thinking we could create wires and other conduits out of organic biological material, but in fact that’s another example of moving beyond our current derangement.

Of course, for such experiments to work we need more than imagination and research. We need a hybrid system in which the virus of our out-of-control consumerism and capitalism is cured with the vaccine of a big dose of socialism, entangled with bits and pieces from every other system or ideology that can be of use. Because in addition to continuing to adhere to old modes of thought, another killing approach is to claim territory, to, for example, say one ideology is inherently better than another, when our problems are so complex they require complex solutions.

For example, anyone who thinks that outright revolution is the answer should remember that the first thing to be jettisoned in times of political instability is any responsible stewardship of the environment.

Instead, what we must acknowledge is that capitalism isn’t going to disappear, and certainly not within the next forty years, a time period critical in terms of biomass loss and climate change. Much as I would prefer a more radical approach — perhaps one that eschews all current ideologies in favor of something new — the pragmatist in me says that our best goal is to mix capitalism with other models in hopefully beneficial and inventive ways, while blunting or transforming consumerism.

Our goal must be two-fold: to stem global warming, and in the process to help our ecosystems overall. This will cut down on human misery and also allow animal and plant populations to recover. If we don’t get smarter about these issues and abandon thought-loops and received ideas that should have been outdated long ago, we will find that geologic narratives and the narratives of other species — whether they be the narratives of viruses or of something larger — will outstrip our own. And the illusion of our control will be revealed in stark terms.

We exist in ecosystems whether we realize it or not and imbalances in ecosystems create situations where the strain to retain an old way of life just creates more useless energy use and makes collapse more imminent. The reality of the situation in my novel “Borne” is that people today already live in situations of ecological collapse and displacement. If you don’t feel that in your bones, it is because you have been sheltered from it — literally by location or economics or because you wall out the images and reports coming in from “other” places.

Hanging over all of these issues like a blade is a question: Can we avoid some version of catastrophe? No, we can’t avoid it, and what frustrates me almost as much as climate-change deniers are people who say they believe in global warming but at the same time reject the scientific evidence that suggests the worst of it will be upon us within 25 years. “Oh, that’s not going to happen,” I hear all too often.

This pushing off of the near future into the far future will doom us almost as much as climate change deniers. It’s happening right now, in front of us, not at some undetermined point in the future — and part of being responsible is looking at the yawning void directly and to fight against it and to not turn away. In this context, the recent New York Magazine article that caused such uproar, even with corrections to the science, revealed who thinks existing best-case and mid-range predictions will hold and who believes that an ever-increasing number of unknown variables, acting in combination, may bring the end of our civilization much, much sooner.

Where I am hopeful about the future it is because of what dedicated scientists and creative people are doing in the moment, and how we are beginning to understand that environmental concerns and social justice concerns are often intertwined — and that animals aren’t just objects for us to exploit and that, in addition to the fact we should respect them just because they are living things, they are also vital to our own survival. Habitats are incomplete without animals. Animals are incomplete without plants and fungi. Humans are incomplete with all of this, and we need to live more within the complex web of this wondrous world than we do.

Because that’s the way the world works. Our brains, institutions, businesses, and culture have to adapt to that or we’re simply not going to make it.

© 2017 VanderMeer Creative. 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.

 

Also in The Revelator:

Revelator Reads: 7 New Environmental Books for August

Revelator Reads: 7 New Environmental Books for August

This month brings books about killer fires, strange birds and wicked bugs.

The lazy days of summer are here — which means it’s the perfect time to curl up with a good book after you’re done enjoying the great outdoors. This month you have quite a few new environmentally themed books to choose from, covering a wide range of topics and styles. Here are our top picks for the month, including titles for adults, kids and professionals.

are we screwed?“Are We Screwed?” by Geoff Dembicki

Don’t let the title fool you. This new book, subtitled “How a New Generation is Fighting to Survive Climate Change,” is actually a positive “roadmap” for fixing the planet. (Bloomsbury, August 22, $28)

megafire“Megafire: The Race to Extinguish a Deadly Epidemic of Flame” by Michael Kodas

Gigantic fires have become the new norm, thanks in no small part to climate change. Kodas traveled the world to build a narrative about this growing threat and the efforts being taken to beat back the blazes. (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, August 22, $28)

strange bird vandermeer“The Strange Bird” by Jeff VanderMeer

A novella-length e-book set in the world of Vandermeer’s recent post-apocalyptic novel “Borne,” this promises to continue the author’s examination of our relationship with nature. (Read VanderMeer’s essay about “life in the broken places” today on The Revelator.) (FSG, August 1, $2.99)

“Becoming a Wildlife Professional,” edited by Scott E. Henke and Paul R Krausman

Looking to get into wildlife conservation as a career? This may be the book for you. Billed as “the first comprehensive book to describe the entry-level jobs available for the next generation of wildlife biologists and conservationists,” this tome covers everything a student could want to know about 100 different career options. (The Wildlife Society, August 30, $59.50)

wicked bugs“Wicked Bugs” by Amy Stewart

Here’s one for the kiddos — a look at the “meanest, deadliest, grossest bugs on Earth.” This is a young readers’ edition of Stewart’s earlier (and just as wicked) book for adults of the same title. (Algonquin, August 8, $12.95)

“Wonderlandscape: Yellowstone National Park and the Evolution of an American Cultural Icon” by John Clayton

This entertaining new book looks at how the fabled national park “shaped America’s relationship with her land, and will continue to do so for generations to come.” (Pegasus Books, August 8, $27.95)

climate crisis“Climate Crisis and the Democratic Prospect” by Frank Fischer

What are the chances for the survival of democracy as the world warms? This new book “argues that establishing and sustaining democratic practices will be difficult during the global climate turmoil ahead, especially in the face of state of emergencies” and offers a framework for ensuring the continuation of participatory democracy. (Oxford University Press, August 15, $90)

But wait, there’s more!

We can’t list everything, but here are few more notable books due out this month:

Well, that’s our list this August, but you can help add to it. Share your new or old favorite environmental books in the comments below.

 

Previously in The Revelator:

Revelator Reads: 7 New Environmental Books for July

Oil Sands Becoming Old News?

Fossil fuel development companies have abandoned their leases on more than 1 million hectares of oil sands in northern Alberta. The areas have become less desirable (and less profitable) following the worldwide plunge in crude oil prices. Even the infamous Keystone XL pipeline — which President Trump approved almost as soon as he took office — now seems to lack the necessary support for its construction. What could replace it? Oh, maybe a little thing called solar power.

Rangers Provide Thin Green Line Protecting Wildlife Against Poachers, Extinction

World Ranger Day gives us an opportunity to recognize the people on the front lines.

On a dark Mozambique night just over a year ago, sleeping villagers were brutally attacked in their homes. It was coordinated, targeted violence against men who work to stop the poaching of some of the planet’s last remaining rhinos. Today a rhino is killed every eight hours, and estimates indicate that a mere 30,000 are now left on Earth, down from millions a few centuries ago.

In this assault both the wildlife rangers and their families became victims. The poachers looted homes, destroying personal property and donated equipment such as bikes, cell phones and radios — all essential for anti-poaching work. The vicious attack left one man with critical injuries after he was abducted, tortured and dumped roadside.

This is just one story among many about the dangers park rangers face in their critical work to save Earth’s endangered and threatened wildlife and other biodiversity. Serving as a ranger or guard in a park, preserve or sanctuary is among the most challenging jobs in the world. In the past 10 years, hundreds of rangers have been killed in the line of duty — at least 105 in the past year alone. Some have lost their lives in tribal or boundary disputes; many die or are wounded at the hands of poachers, illegal loggers and terrorists. In many places this dangerous employment is poorly compensated, too, with rangers working in locations far away from their homes and family for long periods of time. Some even lack adequate equipment, such as uniforms or radios.

Even in the United States, as NPR reported several years ago, rangers face many risks. They cover wide spaces and remote locales, often with little backup. As the law enforcement for public lands, park rangers deal with varied crimes, from sexual assaults and stabbings to weapons and drugs scenarios, such as meth labs and marijuana growing on public lands.

One ranger noted that the issues of the broader society are reflected in our supposed protected wild spaces. That includes, globally, a dramatic increase in wildlife and plant trafficking, an illicit trade valued at an estimated $70 billion to $213 billion annually. So as long as this rape of the planet remains at crisis levels for too many species — threatening to drive bears, elephants, tigers, rhinos and a multitude of other species extinct — rangers will continue to be in grave danger from the often well-organized and well-armed criminals and rebel groups behind this grim business.

The eleventh World Ranger Day — today, July 31 — gives an opportunity to pause for the brave men and women who protect our wild creatures and wild spaces. Every three days a park ranger loses his or her life in the line of duty. We should all do what we can to support these rangers and the families who have lost their loved ones defending the wild. Organizations including the Thin Green Line Foundation and the International Ranger Federation work directly to support the tens of thousands of rangers in parks globally and to build awareness of their contributions.

And in Mozambique, last year’s brutal attack on those holding the thin green line to protect wild rhino did not go unchallenged. The International Anti-Poaching Foundation immediately launched a campaign to assist the rangers. IAPF operates on the front lines of the world wildlife wars to protect some of the most endangered animals, including the rhino, by using military principles in training rangers to be the first and last line of defense for nature.

Working with the governments of South Africa and Mozambique, IAPF’s efforts along the South Africa-Mozambique border of Kruger National Park — home to 40 percent of the world’s remaining rhinos — have reduced losses dramatically and increased arrests of poachers. At the same time, Mozambique, one of the poorest countries in the world, has increased its protected areas by almost 130,000 acres. As a result, for the first time since rhinos were declared extinct in Mozambique in 2013, a resident population of approximately 25 rhinos has re-established itself in the country.

Where there’s courage, there’s hope. Keep it up, rangers.

© Maria Fotopoulos, all rights reserved

Earth Overshoot Day: An Opportunity for Change

We’ll use 1.7 Earths’ worth of resources this year. Can six pledges make a difference?

We humans use a lot of stuff — so much stuff, in fact, that we consume more in a year than the planet is capable of regenerating.

That wasn’t a problem until a few decades ago. Back in 1987 the “overshoot” date for Earth’s resources was December 19, less than two weeks before the end of the year. That’s not too bad, right?

Thirty years later, however, that date has moved up — and up — and up. Last year what has now been dubbed Earth Overshoot Day had moved all the way up to August 8.

This year it’s even earlier.

August 2.

That means that by the end of 2017 we will have used the equivalent of about 1.7 Earths’ worth of resources.

Oops.

overshoot“It’s surprising that we haven’t been able to turn around the trend much,” says Mathis Wackernagel, president of the Global Footprint Network, which runs the Earth Overshoot Day campaign each year. “The increase seems to be slowing down, but not very rapidly yet.”

(The Revelator is published by the Center for Biological Diversity, one of Global Footprint Network’s partners in Earth Overshoot Day.)

Despite the six-day leap forward this year, Wackernagel actually encourages people to take Earth Overshoot Day as a positive moment and an opportunity for change. “Since the very beginning we have pledged to be optimistic, positive, and just describe what the situation is.”

Being positive helps, but it isn’t necessarily enough, so this year Earth Overshoot Day has introduced a new level of interactivity. “We added a new twist called Move the Date,” Wackernagel says, “to say what would it actually take to move the date four and a half days per year?” The Move the Date webpage contains six pledges people can take to make an individual or societal difference. They include something as simple as trying a new vegetarian recipe to pledging to reach out to your city leadership for broader change.

“It’s a way to translate something that feels insurmountable into kind of bite-sized opportunities,” Wackernagel says.

Wackernagel admits that moving the date back 4.5 days is a relatively small goal. “To my taste that wouldn’t be enough, but at least it would be much, much better than what we do now,” he says. And, he adds, if we accomplished that 4.5-day shift every year, we’d be back to using the resources of a single planet by the year 2050.

Another new component this year is a web tool to “calculate your own Overshoot Day.” Visitors can use the site’s footprint calculator — which looks like a 3D video game — to figure out how much they use and how it compares to others. “It lets people see what Earth Overshoot Day would be like if everybody acted like you,” Wackernagel says.

The site also contains resources for students and teachers, as well as a list of additional solutions from Project Drawdown, which earlier this year calculated the 80 most effective ways to reverse global warming.

Wackernagel acknowledges that some simple things such as eating a single vegetarian meal won’t move the global needle very far, but adds that everyone can make a difference. “We want to get away from people’s strong perception that sustainability is about a voluntary lifestyle choice for a select few. Rather, sustainability is a collective necessity, if we want to have a successful, prosperous future,” he says.

The Butterflies and the Border Wall

Why are government contractors clearing trees on a private Texas butterfly sanctuary?

The National Butterfly Center in Mission, Texas, has become an unexpected flashpoint in the battle between President Trump’s border wall and private property rights.

The story began on July 20 when Marianna Trevino Wright, executive director of the nonprofit center, found a crew of workers armed with chainsaws and heavy machinery on their privately owned property and private road, located just north of the Rio Grande River. The crew, she says, had already chopped down “dozens, perhaps hundreds,” of trees, shrubs and other plants. Wright also found orange stakes and large painted tags marking off about 200,000 square feet of land for apparent bulldozing. That land, according to the National Butterfly Center, serves as habitat for more than 400 endemic and migratory species, including monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus). All of that habitat might be lost to accommodate Trump’s wall, Wright fears.

The workers had not notified anyone of their presence or their intentions and had entered the property without permission, driving right past “private property” signs, Wright tells The Revelator.

Wright says the work crew, reportedly from an Alaskan construction company, told her they had been contracted by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The agency quickly denied to the media that any trees had been removed by it or its partner, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. That assertion was repeated to The Revelator this week. “The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ contractor has not performed any clearing or tree removals in the vicinity of the National Butterfly Center,” Corps spokesperson James Frisinger wrote to me in an email.

Video evidence, however, showed that trees had been cut down:

In addition to the cleared vegetation, the video also shows a Texas tortoise (Gopherus berlandieri), a state-protected species, wandering near the contractors’ machines.

Who was responsible for this? The two agencies spent most of this past week still denying that it had even happened. Frisinger did say that a Corps-employed crew was present to collect soil samples from the flood-prevention levee on the property as part of “the limits of the permanent levee easements owned by the U.S. Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission.” The markings, he said, were to help gather “geotechnical data to help CBP plan its current and future border security program.”

But Frisinger said a second crew was also present. After several days of inquiries, Customs and Border Protection spokesperson Roderick Kise was able to confirm that the trees had been removed by this second crew. He said the work was part of ongoing maintenance work for the levee on the National Butterfly Center’s property and the access road used by border patrol agents. He added that the center should have been informed of the work prior to the crew’s arrival.

Wright disputed those comments, saying the levees on their property meet all standards and are “certified FEMA compliant” and that tree removal would not mitigate future floods. The access road, meanwhile, is “already wide and well-maintained,” she says.

The bigger picture continues to emerge, and it shows plans that would affect private properties such as the National Butterfly Center. Wright has posted online copies of an email originally sent by Customs and Border Protection acting branch chief Daniel Schroeder to undisclosed recipients on July 25 — five days after the work on their property — stating that the agency had begun research into which landowners would be affected by border-wall construction. “Obtaining the appropriate real estate interest is imperative to completing this project,” the email reads. It continues: “CBP anticipates beginning direct engagement activities with identified landowners before the end of FY 2017. This initial landowner engagement will include seeking permission to identify the boundaries of the property through a right of entry to survey agreement. Both the landowner and the government will then engage expert appraisers to give an opinion on the value of the land. At that time, USACE will attempt to negotiate with the landowner for the sale of the property at fair market value.”

If things do move forward with the border wall, Wright says the markers placed on their land indicate that about 1.2 miles of the National Butterfly Center’s property would end up behind the wall, making it inaccessible. “We’re losing about two-thirds of our property,” she says.

They wouldn’t be alone. Maps posted online reveal that the wall would also cut off nearby county parks, the famously haunted La Lomita Mission, local businesses and residences, and even a RV park. “That entire community will be behind the wall,” Wright says. “How will they receive emergency fire and medical services?”

Carlos Diaz, southwest branch chief for Customs and Border Protection, told me via email on July 26 that “no decision has been made regarding locations as we’re waiting for the FY18 [budget] to be approved.” The House of Representatives voted to approve that budget on July 27.

Meanwhile, however, border-wall preparation has already begun in the nearby Santa Ana Wildlife Refuge, a federal property.

Ultimately, Wright says this is not about protecting the center’s titular butterflies. “It’s about due process and property rights,” she says. “Private property is sacrosanct. It’s the fiber of the American dream.”

Legal experts consulted by The Revelator say the federal government has a lot of power, but can’t just show up and start bulldozing things. “No, they can’t do that,” says Patrick Parenteau, a professor at Vermont Law School. “When it comes to actually taking property — certainly by physical occupation, damaging property and causing economic harm — they’re going to have to pay. That means somebody’s got to file a lawsuit, though.”

Wright says the National Butterfly Association and its parent organization, the North American Butterfly Association, are already looking into that and have set up a crowdfunding campaign to support their legal fight. “We don’t imagine that we can stop the wall,” she admits. “This really is a David and Goliath-type fight. But who knows. We’ve got to give it our all.”

 

Previously in The Revelator:

Does Trump Really Have the Authority to Shrink National Monuments?

Trump’s Border Wall Could Impact an Astonishing 10,000 Species

Now the UK is Banning Gas-Powered Cars

Just two weeks after France said it will no longer allow the sale of gas- and diesel-powered autos after 2040, the United Kingdom has followed suit. In addition, the UK announced it is also exploring ways to tax the dirtiest vehicles on the road as a way to lower current air pollution levels in the most-affected local areas. About half of all cars registered in the UK each year are diesel-powered; electric and hybrid vehicles, although a growing market, still represent a tiny fraction of all new cars sold there. Experts predict that should start to shift in the mid-2020s as prices become more competitive.

How Changing Our Diet Could Save Animals from Extinction

It's not just your personal choices. Global policy also matters, according to new research.

Transforming large swaths of the tropics into farmland could render almost one-third of wildlife there extinct, new research suggests.

From the Amazon rain forests to the Zambezi floodplains, intensive monoculture farming could have a severe adverse impact on wildlife around the world.

Wildlife would disappear most dramatically in the remaining forests and grasslands of Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa. The greatest species loss would occur in the Peruvian Amazon basin where as many as 317 species could vanish as a result of agricultural development.

As a doctoral researcher at Humboldt University Berlin, I studied human food consumption, land use and how they affect wildlife. Our research was published July 17 in Nature Ecology and Evolution.

While human population has doubled since 1970, the number of birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians have dropped by more than half. At its root, this widespread environmental destruction is a result of our growth as a species and increasing food consumption to sustain ourselves.

Although climate change casts a shadow over future conservation efforts, farming is the number-one threat to wildlife. We have already altered some 75 percent of the ice-free land on this planet. If we continue along our current course, we will need to double our crop production to feed a growing world population that demands more resource-intensive foods such as meat and dairy.

Africa at risk

Our research shows that Sub-Saharan Africa is particularly at risk of harmful agricultural development. This region is at the crossroads of economic, demographic and agricultural growth, and minimizing potential effects of agricultural change there is an urgent challenge.

The potential biodiversity loss due to agricultural expansion and intensification worldwide could be as high as 317 species in some locales (left), reaching 31 per cent of known vertebrate animals (right). (Laura Kehoe), Author provided

This becomes more worrying when considering the percentage of land that is currently at risk (i.e. natural but arable) and not protected against future development. Four-fifths of the regions we identify at risk of farmland expansion in Sub-Saharan Africa are unprotected. This is less than half of the 43 percent protected in Latin America.

Some may mistakenly believe that protecting land from farming is about preserving wildlife habitat while local people go hungry. But it’s not a binary choice. Instead, the goal is to ensure an ample supply of nutritious food while at the same time conserving the most biodiverse and unique places on Earth. This is possible if we try. Knowing in advance what areas are most at risk allows us to better plan for a more sustainable future.

Aside from protecting land, food can be grown at little to no cost to biodiversity. For example, small-holder agro-ecological farming, which uses diverse cropping techniques along with fewer chemical fertilizers and pesticides, can produce large quantities of nutritious food at little to no cost to wildlife.

We need to increase awareness of agro-ecological farming methods and secure local people’s land-holder rights — a crucial step to preventing large foreign corporations from buying up land for monoculture farming.

Communities adopting agro-ecological techniques is a win-win solution that goes a long way towards sustainably feeding the world without pushing wildlife towards extinction.

What can policy makers do?

Current large-scale conservation schemes are based on factors that include past habitat loss and the threatened status of species, but none include the potential for future land-use change. We need to do a better job of predicting future pressures on wildlife habitat, especially because timely conservation action is cheaper and more effective than trying to fix the damage caused by farming. Our research takes a step in this direction.

We also show which countries could do with more support for conservation initiatives to protect land and find ways to sustainably grow food. Suriname, Guyana and the Republic of the Congo are just a few examples, as well as a number of countries in Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa that are at the center of high agricultural growth, low conservation investment and very high numbers of species that could be lost due to agricultural development.

Since most agricultural demand comes from richer nations, those countries should provide education and support for sustainable farming methods and locally led conservation efforts.

Map shows countries at risk of high species loss from agricultural development (yellow, bear icon), rapid agricultural growth 2009 to 2013 (orange, tractor symbol), and differing levels of conservation spending. Red represents low spending, high growth, and high species loss. Purple shows high spending, high growth, and low species loss. Green is high spending, low growth, and high species loss. Low values for all three factors are in grey. White represents no data. Dollar figures per square kilometer. Laura Kehoe, Author provided

What can you do?

All of this raises the question: How can we eat well without harming wildlife? One simple step we can all take right now that would have a far greater impact than any other (aside from having fewer children): Cut out the grain-fed beef.

The inefficiency of feeding livestock grain to turn them into meals for humans makes a diet heavy in animals particularly harsh on the Earth’s resources. For example, in the United States, it takes 25 kilograms of grain to produce one kilogram of beef. Pigs have a grain-to-meat-ratio of 9:1, and chickens are 3:1.

Imagine throwing away 25 plates of perfectly good food to get one plate of beef — the idea is absurd and would likely be news if done en masse. But that is precisely what we are all unknowingly doing by eating resource-intensive meat. Articles on food waste seem half-baked when keeping in mind the bizarre grain-to-meat ratio of many of our most popular meats.

There are ways in which farmers can raise livestock with little to no environmental damage, particularly when land is not overgrazed and trees remain on the landscape. Indeed, in some remote areas grazing cattle are a crucial source of food and nourishment. Unfortunately, the industrialized feedlot model that relies heavily on grain makes up the overwhelming majority of the meat in your supermarket. That is the kind of farming that our research investigates.

Livestock and deforestation

To make matters worse, the grain we feed animals is the leading driver of deforestation in the tropics. And it’s a hungry beast: our cows, pigs, and poultry devour over one-third of all crops we grow. Indeed, the grain we feed to animals in the U.S. alone could feed an additional 800 million people if it were eaten by us directly — more than the number of people currently living in hunger.

Livestock quietly causes 10 times more deforestation than the palm oil industry but seems to get about 10 times less media attention. While it’s certainly true that avoiding unsustainable palm oil is a good idea, avoiding eating animals that were raised on grain is an even more effective conservation tactic.

Feeding the world without damaging nature is one of the greatest challenges humanity faces. But with a little foresight, better land governance and some simple meal changes, many of the solutions are at arm’s length.

The ConversationFor wildlife’s sake, go forth and enjoy your veggie burgers.

 

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.