Ten New Environmental Books Offering Inspiration, Insight and Ideas

April’s best new eco-books look toward solutions to the extinction crisis, climate change, water shortages, environmental justice and more.

April brings spring showers — or it used to, at least. Here in the Portland area, this year, it also brought snow, hail, wind and thunder, along with downed trees, power outages and traffic accidents. Similar abnormal weather occurred throughout the country, with several regions experiencing mid-April blizzards.

revelator readsThat’s climate chaos for you: a series of unpredictable and dangerous events making life more complicated and deadly.

How can we make sense of this and other crises affecting the natural world? Ten new books — including several by Revelator contributors — may offer you the answers, along with some insight, inspiration and ideas to create powerful change.

These books — all published this month — cover heady topics like climate change, environmental justice, biodiversity loss and more. Some are intended for people just learning the basics, while others speak to dedicated environmental professions. Many provide a window into the wonders of the natural world. All offer a vision not just for April, but far into the future.


Rewilding: The Radical New Science of Ecological Recovery (Illustrated Edition)

by Paul Jepson and Cain Blythe

RewildingOur take: If we ever hope to meet the goal of protecting 30-50% of the planet, we’d better start recovering some of the land and water we’ve lost in the first place. Rewilding ain’t easy, but it’s going to be essential.

From the publisher: “Written by two leaders in the field, this book offers an abundantly illustrated guide to the science of rewilding. It shows in fascinating detail the ways in which ecologists are reassembling ecosystems that allow natural interactions rather than human interventions to steer their environmental trajectories.”

Water Always Wins: Thriving in an Age of Drought and Deluge

by Erica Gies

Water Always WinsOur take: Gies has written a bevy of articles about “Slow Water” over the past few years, and we’re glad to see her tackle the topic in book form.

From the publisher: “In this quietly radical book, science journalist Erica Gies introduces us to innovators in what she calls the Slow Water movement who start by asking a revolutionary question: What does water want? Using close observation, historical research, and cutting-edge science, these experts in hydrology, restoration ecology, engineering, and urban planning are already transforming our relationship with water.”

Fire and Flood: A People’s History of Climate Change, From 1979 to the Present

by Eugene Linden

Fire and FloodOur take: We’ve followed Linden’s writing for years. Here he offers vital history as a window to the future.

From the publisher: “From a writer and expert who has been at the center of the fight for more than 30 years, a brilliant, big-picture reckoning with our shocking failure to address climate change. Fire and Flood focuses on the malign power of key business interests, arguing that those same interests could flip the story very quickly — if they can get ahead of a looming economic catastrophe.”

Is Science Enough? Forty Critical Questions About Climate Justice

by Aviva Chomsky

Is Science EnoughOur take: Chomsky’s previous books have focused on immigration, labor exploitation and related issues, and she brings an awareness of racism and equity to her discussion of climate change (which, despite the book’s title, offers a fair amount of science for those readers who are new to the danger it poses).

From the publisher: “…Chomsky breaks down the concepts, terminology and debates for activists, students and anyone concerned about climate change. She argues that science is not enough to change course: We need put social, racial and economic justice front and center and overhaul the global growth economy.” YES! Magazine has an excerpt.

Maker Comics: Live Sustainably!

by Angela Boyle; illustrated by Les McClaine

Maker ComicsOur take: This series of enthusiastic educational graphic novels takes a hybrid approach that combines character-based stories with easily followed how-to lessons. This latest volume joins earlier editions on science experiments, robots and gardening.

From the publisher: “…a step-by-step DIY guide that will help kids roll up their sleeves and get making with confidence! Inside this graphic novel you’ll find instructions for eight sustainability projects.”

Life on the Rocks: Building a Future for Coral Reefs

by Juli Berwald

Life on the RocksOur take: Berwald gave us a flavor of this moving book in her essay “Vanishing: The Bleaching in My Backyard” and in this interview.

From the publisher: “…an inspiring, lucid, meditative ode to the reefs and the undaunted scientists working to save them against almost impossible odds. As she also attempts to help her daughter in her struggle with mental illness, Berwald explores what it means to keep fighting a battle whose outcome is uncertain. She contemplates the inevitable grief of climate change and the beauty of small victories.”

How to Sell a Poison: The Rise, Fall and Toxic Return of DDT

by Elena Conis

How to Sell a PoisonOur take: Sex sells, but is using a sexy cover photo the wrong idea for a book about a dangerous pesticide? Check out this revealing Twitter thread where Conis discusses the 74-year history of the photo (which depicts a woman in a fog of “harmless” DDT) and its modern relevance.

From the publisher: “…the sweeping narrative of generations of Americans who struggled to make sense of the notorious chemical’s risks and benefits. Historian Elena Conis follows DDT from postwar farms, factories and suburban enclaves to the floors of Congress and tony social clubs, where industry barons met with Madison Avenue brain trusts to figure out how to sell the idea that a little poison in our food and bodies was nothing to worry about.”

What Climate Justice Means and Why We Should Care

by Elizabeth Cripps

What Climate Justice MeansOur take: A philosopher and former journalist, Cripps addresses the climate crisis through the lenses of morality, ethics and justice. She makes you care about climate change’s most vulnerable victims and in the process offers advice on how we all can help.

From the publisher: “Who should pay the bill for climate action? Who must have a say? How can we hold multinational companies, organizations — even nations — to account? Cripps argues powerfully that climate justice goes beyond political polarization. Climate activism is a moral duty, not a political choice.”

The Coasts of California: A California Field Atlas

by Obi Kaufmann

Coasts of CaliforniaOur take: This is the third book in Kaufmann’s unique series of “field atlases,” which combine art and science into a beautifully illustrated guide for any naturalist or nature lover. For a flavor of what to expect, check out Kaufmann’s essay about one of California’s most beautiful but overlooked trees, “Vanishing: In Love With the Blue Oaks.”

From the publisher: “…much more than a survey of tourist spots, Coasts is a full immersion into the astonishingly varied natural worlds that hug California’s shoreline. With hundreds of gorgeous watercolor maps and illustrations, Kaufmann explores the rhythms of the tides, the lives of sea creatures, the shifting of rocks and sand, and the special habitats found on California’s islands.”

Chasing the Ghost Bear: On the Trail of America’s Lost Super Beast

by Mike Stark

Ghost BearConflict of Interest Department: Stark, a former journalist, is a fellow Center for Biological Diversity employee who helped launch The Revelator. His latest book is a riveting examination of the extinction crisis by way of a prehistoric loss. Read an excerpt here.

From the publisher: “No animal shakes the human consciousness quite like a bear, and few compare to the giant short-faced bears that stalked North America during the Pleistocene… The bears weren’t invincible, however. Despite their size, they were swept off the planet in a mysterious wave of Ice Age extinctions more than ten thousand years ago, then mostly forgotten… Part natural history, part travelogue, and part meditation on extinction and loss, Chasing the Ghost Bear returns these magnificent beasts to their rightful place in our understanding of the world just an epoch past.”

Previously in The Revelator:

Now Read This: Stop Doomscrolling and Save the Planet

Creative Commons

Six Ways to Talk About Extinction

Including one we forget far too often.

As Earth faces the rampant biodiversity loss many scientists call the Sixth Extinction, it becomes more important than ever to talk about the crisis.

There are, I’ve come to realize in my 15 years on the extinction beat, six ways to do this.

The first, of course, involves sharing the devastating news that a species has gone extinct. Researchers have looked for a species for years and, failing to find evidence that it still exists, declare that it has been lost.

These are usually phrased as “probable extinctions,” because it’s harder to prove that an organism doesn’t exist than that it does. Also, calling something “extinct” too early can result in removing the very protections that could be saving it from that fate. That’s always an important context for these discussions.

The Lord God Bird and Dozens of Other Species Declared Extinct in 2021

The second way to talk about extinction — by far the most common — is a warning: An animal or plant, or a group of them, is disappearing and could soon go extinct. Invariably, human activities are to blame for the decline of these populations.

Mice, Hedgehogs and Voles Need Conservation Champions

Again, sometimes you find variations on this, such as when we proclaim that a species has disappeared from a specific portion of its range and has become locally extinct. This warning is no less worrisome, though the messaging can sometimes create confusion when people come to believe a species is completely gone.

Tigers Extinct in Laos

That brings us to the third way to talk about the subject: Someone is trying to do something to prevent an extinction. These are stories of struggle, science and drama. They can involve heroes, villains and everything in between. They serve to lift us up in the continued fight against human-caused entropy.

A Virus Wiped Out 90% of This Turtle Species. Can It Recover?

Occasionally — and not as rarely as you might think — this leads to discussion number four: People have saved a species from extinction and it’s now recovered — or at least on its way. This serves as a vital counterpoint to the darkness that surrounds stories of loss.

Saving California Condors — With a Chisel and Hand Puppets

Sometimes these heroic achievements have nuances: Someone finds a species that had previously been declared extinct. This is great news…with reservations. It shows that science works and that people don’t give up. But most of these rediscovered species remain at high risk or are even critically endangered, and they’ve been found in the nick of time for people to (ideally) take action to protect them. That places this kind of conversation somewhere between types two and four. We’ll call it type five.

Harlequin Found: ‘Extinct’ Toad Rediscovered After 30 Years

Which brings us to type six: the discussions that reveal what we’re losing when species go extinct. The beauty. The wonder. The parts of our culture and collective experience. The ecological roles that protect us. The mystery of species not yet understood. The marvel of evolution. The interconnectedness of ecological systems.

Ideally, there should be no type six. These are the messages that belong in discussions one through five, but all too often are left by the wayside. Perhaps that’s why type six is at the bottom of the list: It’s the rarest conversation of all.

And potentially, that’s the reason one through five exist in the first place.

What Losing 1 Million Species Means for the Planet — and Humanity

Creative Commons

Unearthing the Story of North America’s Lost Giant Bear

A new book digs through dark caves and historical documents to tell the story of the now-extinct giant short-faced bear, which disappeared around the time of the mammoths.

Excerpted from Chasing the Ghost Bear: On the Trail of America’s Lost Super Beast by Mike Stark by permission of the University of Nebraska Press. ©2022 by the Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska.

Editor’s Note: Giant short-faced bears (Arctodus simus) went extinct some 11,000 years ago. These massive animals, which stood 10-feet-tall on their hind legs and weighed nearly a ton, vanished near the end of the Pleistocene. The Center for Biological Diversity’s Mike Stark brings their story back to life — and helps illuminate the cost of today’s extinction crisis.

On August 8, 1988, a man named Chris Nielson was digging with a backhoe as part of a reconstruction project for Huntington Reservoir in Utah’s Wasatch Mountains. Out of the sticky mud he pulled what looked to be a log. A closer examination revealed that it was actually a bone. A very large one. It turned out to be a front leg of a fifteen-foot-tall Columbian mammoth. Part of a long, curved tusk was also found. To the crew’s credit, work halted and a concerted excavation began. That summer about 90 percent of the mammoth’s skeleton was found during a meticulous recovery process. It was in remarkable shape, thanks mostly to the encasement of mud that had hovered around freezing for thousands of years, acting as the perfect refrigerator — and preservation agent — for this ancient mammoth.

“At the excavation it was so fresh that we thought we could smell rotting meat at one place,” said David Gillette, who was Utah’s state paleontologist at the time.

Based on the wear and tear of its teeth, the big bull mammoth was likely around sixty years old — granddaddy age for an elephant. It was no charmed life on the edge of this receding alpine lake. Nearly all of his bones showed signs of severe and painful disease, mostly arthritis. The partially digested food in his intestinal tract revealed that his last meal was meager and thin, mostly needles and twigs from a fir tree, sedge leaves and seeds. Finally, around thirteen thousand calendar years ago — a point representing “the very end of mammoth existence in America” — he keeled over and died in a mud bog atop this mountain, far from his ancestral home.

Columbian mammoths were typically plains dwellers, so it was unusual to find one in the mountains at nine thousand feet above sea level. (At the time it was the highest mammoth skeleton ever found in North America.) But, when he died, the Pleistocene and the continent’s mammoth species were in their twilight as the climate was getting warmer. It’s likely the Huntington mammoth was moving upslope in search of cooler climes in the upper reaches of the Wasatch Mountains. But he wasn’t alone.

Several projectile points were also found at the dig site, leading to speculation that Paleoindians may have either hunted the mammoth or scavenged it after finding it dead.book cover, silhouette of bear

Word got out about the mammoth in 1988 and soon locals were sneaking onto the site and digging on their own, even though it was on federal land and they didn’t have permission. A crew was called in to guard the area. That’s apparently when the remains of a giant short-faced bear were found and whisked away: a single rib and part of its skull, including several teeth. The story was that someone on the night watch duty took the bear parts and stowed them in a refrigerator. They were eventually returned, but the damage was done. Situational context is crucial in paleontological digs, and removing pieces before their location can be closely documented is like ripping pages from a book and trying to understand what they mean. Although the bear bones were recovered and placed safely in a museum the physical context, including exact proximity to the mammoth and the human tools, was lost forever.

Still, there was enough to scientifically piece together some of the story of this giant short-faced bear by Gillette, the Utah paleontologist, and David B. Madsen, both of whom worked at Utah’s Division of State History. First of all, it was big, likely in the same ballpark of the giant found in the early 1980s near ancient Lake Bonneville that was estimated to weigh around 1,400 pounds. The Huntington bear also had large teeth, a tall nasal cavity and an exceptionally squished snout. “This individual was distinctly short-faced, an extreme among the short-faced bears,” Gillette and Madsen wrote.

And then there was the matter of the projectile points and other lithic tools found nearby. Some of them were similar to points found in western Wyoming from around 9,500 years ago. Others were comparable to those found higher up in the Rocky Mountains of the same vintage, if not a bit older. Could it be that, at this ancient lake, the mammoth, the bear, and the people were existing contemporaneously, each in their own desperate struggle for survival in a changing world? Maybe.

“The presence of these Paleoindian materials suggests, but cannot prove, that humans were contemporary with the Columbian mammoth and the short-faced bear at the Huntington dam site,” Gillette and Madsen said.

Utah has long been a hotbed for Ice Age wildlife discoveries. About two miles away from the Huntington Reservoir, there’s a site where American mastodons, extinct bison, and extinct horses have been found. About sixty miles north there’s another rich Pleistocene find. Silver Creek, as it’s known, includes twenty-nine species, like mastodons, ground sloths, dire wolves, saber-toothed cats, camels, horses, and bison. The date there is from about forty thousand years ago. But what happened at Huntington may have been a final dramatic chapter in the final hours of the late Pleistocene. “I’m guessing Arctodus was feeding on our poor, dear mammoth,” Gillette, the state paleontologist, said at a community meeting a couple months after the discovery. “Perhaps it delivered the final blow.”

It’s hard to know for sure, but the frozen dead mammoth, so well preserved in the cool boggy ground, might’ve been one of the last meals of the Huntington bear. Gnaw marks on one of the mammoth’s wrist bones show a groove that matches the size and teeth arrangement of the bear. State officials later revised what they think happened: “It’s possible that the bear fed on the carcass and died at the same place,” they said.

Or it’s possible that a different short-faced bear had dined on the mammoth. It’s certainly not out of the question. Years later, scientists published a paper after examining mammoth remains found near Saltville, Virginia, with “extreme examples of carnivore gnawing.” The mammoth had died, and its carcass was probably partially submerged in water or mud. And then a wolf and another meat-eating scavenger — possibly an American lion or a giant short-faced bear — had come along and gnawed on its heel bones with enough force to be identified by scientists thousands of years later.

skull in museum with hand next to it for size
The skull of a giant short-faced bear. Photo: Travis (CC BY-NC 2.0)

Arctodus simus remains, including parts of its jaw and a fearsome-looking lower canine, had been found nearby. The exact size of the bear is unknown, but there was enough evidence to say it was large and likely quite capable of stealing and defending any carcass coveted by other, smaller scavengers. “In fact its only likely rivals would’ve been larger members of its own species,” said the paper, which was authored by Blaine Schubert and Steven C. Wallace at East Tennessee State University.

Still there was another dimension to the bear at Huntington that had caught my eye. “This individual was one of the last of the Pleistocene megafauna in North America,” a state report said in 1996, “perhaps even the last generation.”

While the date may be in dispute — Schubert has since calculated that the Huntington bear lived sometime between 12,764 and 13,058 calendar years ago — the thought of a final, lonely bear, whether at Huntington or elsewhere, struck a melancholy note within me.

_______

This may have been the last stop for the giant short-faced bear. Of course it’s extremely unlikely, astronomically so, that the exact bear found at Huntington Reservoir was the last one on Earth — what are the odds that the last one would actually be found? And that we could ever make that determination? Still, somewhere the last of its kind dropped dead and when it fell, the great shroud of extinction descended over a species that had inhabited the planet for more than a million years. Strange as it was, I let myself consider the possibility that the final moments for Arctodus simus had ticked away at the top of this mountain, the very place I was standing in the chill of the first day of summer.

In recent years, a term has been coined to signify the final individual of a species: an endling. It’s an oddly charming term that’s poignant and sorrowful and final. I wondered if this Huntington bear was the endling for giant short-faced bears. Had his final meal, and the final meal for his kind, been eaten here? Had he spent years searching in vain for a mate, driven by the indefatigable pursuit of procreation at all costs? Had he wandered into the mountains in a last-ditch attempt to outlast the changing world around him only to find a sickly mammoth on the same lost and doomed path?

And then I wondered why I cared about this particular bear. Surely thousands upon thousands of A. simus had perished on the continent, so maybe this one should matter no more than those. But for whatever reason it did. The mind does funny things, and while I stood for a few minutes in the little covered pergola, I ticked through some of the other endlings I knew.

Martha was the name of the last of the passenger pigeons, a species once so populous that when flocks of hundreds of millions flew overhead, day turned to dark. They were mostly gone by the turn of the twentieth century. Martha was born in captivity, spent twenty-nine years at the Cincinnati Zoo, and died in 1914, taking all of the species’ genetic and cultural information with her.

Benjamin was the name given to the world’s last Tasmanian tiger, a sleek carnivorous marsupial with tiger stripes and a kangaroo pouch. He was captured in the wild and held at Australia’s Hobart Zoo under less-than-favorable conditions. He died in 1936, just months after a ban on hunting the species was put into place. Since then, though, there’s been considerable debate about whether Ben was actually the last of his kind.

I was always fond of Toughie, the last of the Rabbs’ fringe-limbed treefrogs. Originally from Panama, he spent his last years living alone at the Atlanta Botanical Garden, a sort of stately but tragic ambassador of the story of frog extinctions happening around the world. He died in 2016.

And it’s hard not to love Lonesome George, the last Pinta Island tortoise, a giant tortoise subspecies, from the Galapagos Islands. He lived to be more than one hundred years old, was never able to breed, and died in 2012, possibly of a heart attack.

It’s a mournful record but only a fraction of the extinctions that have happened during our lifetimes. Many went unnoticed, and nearly every endling went unnamed and uncelebrated. What name would we have given this Arctodus endling in the Utah mountains if we knew indeed he was the last? Huntington? Wasatch? Björn?

Without a good answer, I walked back up the hill to the car, pausing to take in the long stands of aspens and, at their feet, the snowfields stubbornly hanging on against the season’s change, the same way a child clings to a parent’s legs when trouble is afoot. I drew in a long breath of the thin mountain air and let it go. Nothing really lasts.

©2022 by the Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska. Published with permission.

What It’s Like to Study Endangered Killer Whales

Researcher Deborah Giles is on the frontlines of efforts to understand — and help protect — critically endangered Southern Residents.

You can learn a lot from poop.

Deborah Giles would know. As the research director of the nonprofit Wild Orca and a research scientist at the University of Washington, Giles has worked for years on a project collecting scat from endangered Southern Resident killer whales to better understand their health.the ask

And there’s reason for concern. Southern Residents are a distinct population of orcas — known as J, K and L pod — that make their home in the waters around the Pacific Northwest. For the past 20 years their populations have trended dangerously downward. In 2005, with just 88 individuals remaining, they were federally protected as endangered. Today their numbers have dropped to 73.

The Revelator spoke with Giles about the biggest threats facing these killer whales and what can be done to save them.

With the help of specially trained dogs, you’re able to find Southern Resident killer whale scat in the sea. What can you learn from it? 

Five people on boat watching whale breach
Researchers, including Deborah Giles (left), aboard the National Marine Fisheries Service vessel Noctiluca off San Juan Island, Washington in 2006. Photo: NOAA

Scat is a great proxy for blood or blubber. In the past we would’ve had to have taken a blubber biopsy to understand things like how much toxicants are stored or circulating through the whale’s body. But an analysis of one fecal collection yields things like nutrition status, stress hormones, pregnancy hormones. We can tell if a female is pregnant — and how pregnant — based on sex hormones associated with different stages of pregnancy. We can tell things about the gut microbiome, fungus and bacteria. Pretty much anything you can imagine health-wise that can be learned from a biological sample, you can learn from feces.

One of our papers showed that 69% of pregnant females are losing their calves either before they’re viable, meaning they miscarry them or the calves are born and die right away. And one-third of those are females that were pregnant into the last stages of pregnancy, and yet their babies died. Those females are the ones that we were also able to show were nutritionally deprived.

In addition, we can look at things like microplastics. We haven’t done any actual analysis on that yet, but that’s going to be a big one going forward. And we’ll be able to go back and analyze our past samples.

Chinook salmon are the preferred source of food for these killer whales. Is a lack of Chinook what’s driving their health problems?

That’s the biggest problem. Chinook are decimated in quality and quantity throughout the whales’ entire range. We Washingtonians like to think of these whales as ours, but they’re really Oregon’s and California’s whales, too.

Fish declines from Monterey Bay to southeast Alaska are at fault here. What’s causing the declines in salmon? Overfishing, fishing in inappropriate ways and in inappropriate areas, and using inappropriate gear. There’s a massive amount of bycatch from other fisheries.

Dams on rivers are also making the lives of salmon that much harder. So is habitat destruction in estuarine places — in areas that are the interface between the fresh water and saltwater. We’re filling those in with concrete and building condos in those areas that are vitally important for out-migrating salmon.

We’re also creating more fish that are inferior in quality by throwing more hatchery salmon into the mix. Wild salmon have a greater ability to withstand oceanographic perturbations in a way that hatchery fish don’t.

Another problem is with fisheries management. Salmon from much of Oregon, and all of Washington and British Columbia, exit their natal rivers and go up to Alaska to spend anywhere from two to five years in the ocean getting big. Then they leave Alaska return to their natal rivers to spawn.

But often, before they can do that, the Alaskan fishery takes a tremendous amount of the fish. Around 97% of Chinook caught in Alaska are non-native to Alaska. Those fish are bound for these rivers [in Oregon, Washing and British Columbia] and come from a huge number of runs that are on the endangered species list.

What effect is climate change having on Southern Residents?

Climate change is the largest elephant in the room. It’s the one that’s overshadowing everything, because everything that’s impacting the natural world will ultimately find its way to direct impacts to the Southern Residents. Killer whales occur in all oceans of the world, the warmest to the coldest waters. A several-degree temperature change isn’t going to impact the killer whales themselves, but it’s going to affect the fish that they rely on.

That’s another reason some of us are pushing for the Snake River dams to be removed. Those four dams on the mainstem of the Columbia and four on the Snake block some of the highest elevation, coldest water habitat needed for salmon. If we could remove those dams that would give those fish the biggest access to cold water habitat.

The salmon that these whales coevolved with used to be over 100 pounds. It makes sense that you would have these large-bodied whales that can live into their 80s when they were able forage on these incredibly large fatty-rich, lipid-rich fish. A full-grown killer whale or a pregnant killer whale needs 300-400 pounds of food per day.

So back in the day, even 100 years ago, they would have to forage on three or four Chinook and they would have enough to eat and be healthy and thrive.

Now, when the average size of a Chinook in Washington state is 12.5 pounds, killer whales have to forage a lot more to find the same amount of food. And when the prey that they’re looking for is less quality, smaller and more widely dispersed, these whales are having to exert so much more energy to try and get their daily caloric needs met. So it’s no wonder we’re seeing that 69% of females that get pregnant are not able to bring their calf to term.

aerial view of whale chasing fish
A young resident killer whale chases a chinook salmon in the Salish Sea near San Juan Island, Washington 2017. Photo: John Durban (NOAA Fisheries/Southwest Fisheries Science Center), Holly Fearnbach (SR3: SeaLife Response, Rehabilitation and Research) and Lance Barrett-Lennard (Vancouver Aquarium’s Coastal Ocean Research Institute)

What else can we do to help them?

I think we need to be getting dams down that we can do without. That includes the Klamath dams in California and others. We need to be doing habitat restoration on rivers to return healthy riparian corridors so that there’s shade to keep waters cool for salmon, and woody debris to create different habitats within the river system. We need to stop farming right up to the river’s edge. We need to be mindful of the inputs into the river, including industrial toxicants and those associated with agriculture.

We need to stop decimating that interface between the saltwater and the freshwater realm, which is an area that people seem intent to just completely pave over everywhere. We need fisheries management that focuses on maximizing a fish’s potential to get all the way back to its natal river.

We also need to change when, where, and how we fish. We can utilize fishing techniques that can significantly reduce salmon bycatch, like nets with holes in the sides that other species of fish don’t even seem to see, but the Chinook can exit. We need to be very mindful about what is returning, what is moving through an area. Just because you’re out for a pollock or a hake or some other sort of fish, if there’s salmon in the area, I’m sorry, you don’t get to fish there.

In terms of research, I think we need to see what the emerging toxicants are that are impacting these whales, like PFAS. We do need to be looking at how healthy the whales are at different times of the year and to be able to couple that with a knowledge of fisheries abundance. When these whales are getting enough to eat, what’s happening with fisheries there? What are we doing right there? We need to be tracking this throughout the year to be able to see change over time.

What is it like to be studying these animals that are perilously close to extinction? 

I know these whales as individuals. I’ve been following them since I was 18, and I’ve watched

the majority of them grow up. I’ve watched them have babies of their own. I’ve gotten a front row seat to see their interactions with each other. I see how tightly bonded they are.

We saw what happens when a whale loses her calf, like with J35 [who carried her dead calf for at least 17 days in 2018]. That was the world’s opportunity to see what we researchers get to see anytime we’re with them. We see that they’re incredibly socially bonded. They care for each other. They cooperatively hunt and share food, even when they themselves are starving.

And we see that they’re not giving up, they’re continuing to get pregnant. It’s not necessarily a conscious thing — it’s who they are, it’s what they do. But they’re still here and I want to give them as much of a fighting chance as possible.

By continuing the work that we do, by continuing to magnify and highlight what’s happening with them — both the positives and the negatives — it gives the public an opportunity to get engaged and stay engaged.

But is it heartbreaking? Absolutely. Every day it’s heartbreaking to think about what’s happening with them. I think about them every time I get in my car. I ask myself, “Do I really need to take this trip? How is this impacting the whales?”

That’s what I try to impart to people that I’m teaching or getting to visit with: It doesn’t matter where you’re from, the things that you do have an impact on not only these whales, but all the other species on the planet.

It comes down to education, people learning about something that they care about and not just leaving it at that but continuing their education and passing that information onto their friends and family.

Wherever you live, get involved in groups that are doing good work. Don’t just give a thumbs up — actually participate.

Creative Commons

Previously in The Revelator:

Whales Face New and Emerging Threats

Lessons for the Long Term: Tom Lovejoy’s Legacy for Life on Earth

As the world debates the need to protect 30% of the planet’s land and water, research in collaboration with the late conservation biologist shows the importance of long-term support for biodiversity.

The scientific consensus is clear: The climate and ecological crises are accelerating, converging, and putting humanity at risk. Stewardship of large, unbroken ecosystems can help alleviate these crises — by keeping carbon in the ground and sustaining the vast array of life on Earth, including ourselves.

No one knew this better than Dr. Thomas E. Lovejoy, the legendary scientist who famously coined the term “biological diversity” (often shortened to “biodiversity”) and dedicated his life to its protection.

Thomas Lovejoy
Amazon Biodiversity Center

Starting in the 1970s, in the early days of the modern environmental movement, Lovejoy spearheaded an experiment in the Brazilian Amazon to answer a critical debate: Is it better to have a single large reserve or several small ones? In collaboration with the Brazilian government and locals, Lovejoy’s team created forest fragments of different sizes and tracked the ecological consequences. Its findings have unfolded over decades, showing that fragmenting forests leads to species declines or extinctions, affects the local climate, and hinders carbon storage.

The results are clear: While even small forest patches can remain strongholds of endangered species and should be conserved, when it comes to nature reserves, large areas are fundamental and provide unique, irreplaceable benefits for biodiversity.

In the decades since this forest experiment began, governments around the world have increasingly established and expanded nature reserves. These protected areas now cover about 17% of the world’s lands and hold the promise of safeguarding biodiversity within large, unbroken ecosystems for the long term.

But there’s an inconvenient truth for nature reserves that conservationists in the 1970s did not anticipate: Protected areas are not necessarily permanent. In fact, they’re increasingly subject to legal changes that roll back protections and can put ecosystems at risk.

Notably, not all protection rollbacks have negative consequences, as they may restore rights to the original Indigenous or local stewards or enable conservation planning. But many rollbacks to protections are not so benign and authorize new or expanded industrial-scale, extractive development. We’ve seen this happen several times recently:

Australia to Open More Marine Parks to Commercial Fishing

Brazil Launches Plan to Expand Mining in Amazon

Environmentalists [in Kenya] Fear a Proposal to Allow Boundary Changes to Protected Areas Will Open the Door to Deforestation

Nine years ago, as a prospective Ph.D. student who’d initially studied this phenomenon in the United States — and with a keen interest in the biodiversity of Amazonia inspired by a semester abroad in Ecuador — I audaciously approached Lovejoy with an idea. Could we look at the phenomenon of protected area rollbacks in the Amazon? Given increasing pressures from agribusiness, hydropower dams, mining and other industrial development, and the critical importance of large, unbroken ecosystems for biodiversity, the topic seemed ripe for study.

Kroner Lovejoy
The author with Tom Lovejoy at the 2017 Tyler Prize event. Provided.

Tom agreed to advise me through my Ph.D., and I also benefited from generous collaborations with Conservation International. Our study began in the Amazon but evolved to include data from around the world. In a paper published in Science in 2019, we showed that 73 governments enacted more than 3,700 rollbacks to protected areas. Although about one-quarter of these legal changes restored land or rights to communities, most allowed new extractive, industrial-scale activities. We found that Brazil, the home of Tom’s forest-fragment experiment, is a global hotspot of rollbacks.

In a separate study, my colleagues and I — working without Tom — found that protected areas with more deforestation are at higher risk of being rolled back, suggesting the importance of sound management and enforcement to keep protections intact.

Tom called the phenomenon of protected area rollbacks the “underbelly of conservation.” Rollbacks are largely hidden, as official statistics focus on net growth coverage of protected areas. As long as the total number grew, any shrinkages or adjustments to loosen restrictions could remain hidden.

Yet our research has driven new awareness. Protected area rollbacks have now been recognized in a motion by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, and provisionally included as a “complementary” indicator in the Convention on Biological Diversity’s post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. That’s expected to be agreed later this year in a “Paris moment” for biodiversity.

Even as rollbacks continue during the Covid crisis, donors are increasingly prioritizing long-term conservation funding. More comprehensive monitoring by civil society, reporting of information by governments, and financial support from public and private sectors could go a long way toward enhancing durable conservation. Targeted funding, for instance, can support better management. And beyond state-led protected areas, other land stewardship approaches —  especially those led by Indigenous peoples and local communities — need more support.

Durable support for conservation is especially important as conservation groups and world governments debate 30×30, the goal of protecting and conserving at least 30% of the planet’s lands and waters by the year 2030. That’s just eight years away, and as governments rush to meet this goal, any lands lauded as protected by the end of the decade could be chipped away and rolled back without anyone being the wiser.

How can the world ensure that 30×30 goals are achieved in as effective and durable a manner as possible? Again, Tom Lovejoy had the answers.

Make Good Trouble — and Conservation Magic

Working on a bold research topic, I was, and continue to be, inspired by Tom’s wisdom. In the spirit of the late civil rights leader John Lewis, Tom often ended our regular meetings with a wink, smile and reminder to “make good trouble.”

Tom modelled good-trouble-making himself, strategically working along the science-policy interface to make a difference. For instance, with Carlos Nobre, he put pressure on the Bolsonaro administration by spotlighting the Amazon tipping point — a deforestation threshold that, if passed, could flip the tropical forest ecosystem into a savanna, with devastating consequences for the local water cycle, global climate, and irreplaceable biodiversity.

Despite daunting conservation challenges, Tom remained focused on how different stakeholders can safeguard large, unbroken ecosystems and their biodiversity. He took a systems and collaborative approach to identify and advocate for holistic solutions. To name a few: He championed Indigenous and local community stewardship, advocated for forest conservation as a pandemic prevention strategy, and promoted restoration before it was in vogue.

And Tom knew better than anyone that spatial protections alone are not enough to save the world. Scientists agree that transformative changes to address the underlying drivers of biodiversity loss are urgently needed. These changes could include redirecting environmentally damaging subsidies, enhancing nature-positive regulations and sustainable supply chains, accounting for diverse values and ways of measuring societal progress (e.g. beyond GDP), and ensuring equitable access to education.

Tom’s engagements on dozens of boards of organizations across sectors meant that he lived the words he penned in 1989: “Science must take on an advocacy role with respect to environment … indeed, it is our responsibility.” Tom modeled these values through his long-term research, engagements with governments around the world, and generous, legendary convenings. With these actions he created some of the conditions we need to save the world: knowledge generation, meaningful collaborations of scientists with decisionmakers, and political momentum.

In short, Tom Lovejoy made conservation magic happen.

What remains most inspiring is that he never faltered in his persistence and optimism. Despite his position on the front lines of conservation — witnessing ecosystem loss, unsustainable development, and political challenges like rollbacks firsthand — he remained steadfast in his belief that a better way forward is possible. That there’s always some opportunity to make progress.

Governments have an opportunity to do just that, later this year, by agreeing to and financing transformative goals and targets for the Convention on Biological Diversity, including the goal to inclusively protect and conserve at least 30% of the planet by 2030. This effort should be centered in a human rights-based approach with recognition of Indigenous and local community rights and ensure that extractive and industrial-scale activities — and the harmful rollbacks that would enable them — are avoided in protected and conserved areas.

These actions would not only honor Tom Lovejoy, the “Godfather of Biodiversity,” but also give humanity a chance at safeguarding our beautiful planet and its large, unbroken ecosystems for the long term. The future of life on Earth depends on it.

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:

Now Read This: Stop Doomscrolling and Save the Planet

Creative Commons

Best Practices to Confront Pandemics at the Source

The international community must agree to end deforestation, close live-wildlife markets, and embrace a treaty to prevent future outbreaks.

The rapid spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes Covid-19 made it clear: Emerging infectious diseases present global health and security threats to every home and family.

Like SARS-CoV-2, most new infectious diseases in humans are zoonotic, meaning they originate from other animals — and particularly from wildlife. The accelerating frequency and extent to which humans and domestic animals come into contact with wildlife due to land-use change and wildlife markets and trade, together with the lack of proper livestock biosecurity, have increased novel pathogen evolution and spillover.

Combined with ever-increasing global interconnectedness, these trends mean that future outbreaks will occur more often, and spread faster, if we don’t immediately eliminate the primary drivers. We have commonly understood “best practices” to avoid catching Covid-19 from our friends, coworkers, and neighbors: Vaccinate, wear a mask, and socially distance. We now need best practices to prevent pandemic spillover at the source.

1. Protect Habitat

Research shows that landscapes of high ecological integrity (those that are less disturbed and with full ecological function) are resilient in limiting spillover and spillback between humans and animals of the pathogens innocuously circulating and evolving among wildlife. Those un-degraded environments — areas with limited human penetration, encroachment and exploitation — maintain a wealth of proven complementary and cumulative natural barriers to the spread of pathogens with pandemic potential.

Photo: Pixabay

Sadly, however, human activities and exploitation now continuously erode and destroy these vital barriers. Twenty-five months into the present pandemic, we know we must put an end to deforestation and widespread agricultural conversion and land-use changes. These actions directly disrupt species composition, density and distribution, which in turn drives stressed species into new habitats with newly established behaviors and the potential for increased pathogen shedding.

2. Shut Down the Markets

We must also close markets in large urban centers that sell live wildlife for human consumption — a niche consumer extravagance that mixes a stupendous variety of live wildlife species from diverse sources, both legal and illegal. Animals are either trapped in the wild, come from unregulated captive wildlife farms, or emerge from a porous mixture of both.

The animals are also obtained locally, regionally and — for some species — internationally, then transported under horrendous conditions to market. There live animals are stacked on top of, or next to, each other and intermix with domestic livestock like pigs and chickens — and, of course, people. This allows for direct exchange and recombination of pathogens through respiration, excrement and blood.

pangolin meat
Smuggled pangolin meat seized at Miami International Airport. Photo: USFWS (uncredited)

The trade in live wildlife patently violates wildlife-human-wildlife interface integrity and increases spillover and spillback opportunities between wildlife, livestock, poultry and ultimately humans. We can no longer tolerate these vast open-access, wholly unregulated, unsupervised market-based experiments in urban agglomerations and megapolises.

Let me be clear: Commercial urban wildlife markets primarily provide luxury products, do not contribute to nutritional needs, and are of negligible economic importance compared with the global economic devastation of a pandemic such as Covid-19.

3. Address Inequality

Beyond the health threat they pose, the live-animal trade perpetuates global inequities. By emptying forests and landscapes, it deprives vulnerable Indigenous peoples and local communities of their rights, food security and cultural needs. Eliminating the urban commercial trade in wildlife will directly benefit these communities, which are critically dependent on accessing food from intact, biodiverse and healthy landscapes.

It would also bolster the global economy. The costs of many individual recent major outbreaks such as SARS, MERS and Ebola are estimated in the tens of billions of U.S. dollars. When all is tallied, the economic devastation caused by Covid-19 will certainly be orders of magnitude greater: in the tens of trillions.

4. Plan Ahead

As governments and the global public health community ponder post-spillover pandemic preparedness, we must strongly advocate for prevention at the source — in other words, for stopping outbreaks where they’d start. Only prevention directly addresses the growing interfaces and barrier losses where spillovers — and more recently spillbacks — into wildlife occur can mitigate future zoonotic disease threats in an expedient, cost-effective manner.

Prevention has been largely missing in the global debates and approaches to future pandemics as the world attempts to learn from Covid-19. So far most conversations have focused on post-spillover preparedness, interventions and health system strengthening. While these steps are critical, they’re insufficient to protect against the coming pandemics.

covid-19
Source: Centers for Disease Control

Some steps have been taken in this direction, though. In the United States, the House of Representatives passed pandemic prevention provisions as part of the America COMPETES Act on Feb. 4. The bill calls on the U.S. government to work with countries to end the commercial live wildlife trade for human consumption. An alternate version of the bill passed the Senate on March 28, so the two chambers must reconcile their differences before it can go to President Biden’s desk. The key primary spillover prevention and One Health policies must be retained during the conference negotiations.

On a global scale, pandemic preparedness — and to a far lesser degree, prevention — has also been discussed in major multilateral forums, including the G7, G20 and the United Nations security council. Most importantly, the World Health Assembly, the decision-making body of the World Health Organization, initiated a global process in December 2021 to draft and negotiate a convention, agreement or other international instruments under the WHO constitution to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.

This was an essential step as it recognized the importance of pandemic prevention, which had previously been absent from the global agenda. However, a recent statement by World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus in support of a global treaty on pandemic prevention omitted any mention of a prevention-at-the-source approach.  This demonstrates that the concept of pandemic prevention has yet to be fully embraced. NGOs and civil society need to urgently inform and nudge governments and delegates at the World Health Assembly to focus efforts on pandemic prevention. At the same time, concerned citizens can engage their representatives to advocate and support funding for prevention.

This pandemic has made it blatantly clear that we can no longer view our health in isolation. We need to implement a One Health framework that recognizes the interrelatedness and interdependencies of all living things and acknowledge health as a tightly intertwined global common.

We know the best practices to avoid the next pandemic. Recognizing and valuing the foundational importance of intact and resilient environments, stopping deforestation, limiting land-use change, and eliminating the commercial live animal trade for consumption will be critical to our future health and wellbeing. Let’s make these our urgent priorities.

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:

Coronaviruses and the Human Meat Market

Creative Commons

Protect This Place: Kenya’s Kinangop Grasslands

Saving these privately owned grasslands is the key to protecting endangered birds and other unique biodiversity.

Protect This PlaceThe place:

Kinangop Plateau lies between the western border of the Aberdare Mountains and eastern escarpment of the Great Rift Valley, Kenya. It is 62 miles northeast of the Kenyan capital, Nairobi.

Why it matters:

The Kinangop Highland Grasslands are internationally recognized as an Important Bird Area. They’re home to approximately 200 bird species, many of which are threatened. These include the endangered and endemic Sharpe’s longclaw (Kinangop being its stronghold habitat), endangered grey crowned crane, vulnerable Aberdare cisticola and range-restricted long-tailed widowbird.

Sharpe's longclaw
A Sharp’s longclaw hides in the Kinangop grasslands. Photo: FoKP

The threat:

Despite their ecological importance, the Kingangop Highland Grasslands are privately owned and therefore not protected. We’ve seen a sharp decline in their extent and quality over the past 50 years. Now it’s estimated that less than 10% of the original 300 square miles (77,000 hectares) remains suitable habitat for Sharpe’s longclaw and other threatened birds in the region.

Kinangop grasslands
Intact grasslands. Photo: FoKP

Serious threats include the change of land use from traditional livestock grazing to crop cultivation, exotic tree plantations, weed invasion and overgrowing of tussock, along with habitat fragmentation as the local human population increases. This rampant decrease of suitable habitat is directly harming the Sharpe’s longclaw, a grassland specialist that completely avoids non-grassland landscapes like agricultural fields. If this trend continues, the birds are likely to become extinct soon.

My place in this place:

While growing up as a young, energetic and playful boy here in Kinangop, I vividly recall the great diversity of birds that I observed. My parents owned close to 50 acres of land, and almost all of it was intact grassland used for grazing livestock. This was the situation for most of Kinangop three decades ago.

Yet over the years I witnessed the collapse of the livestock-rearing support system. This led to a severely reduced income among grassland owners, who had to start cultivating vegetables — potatoes, peas, beans and cabbages — and fast-growing non-native trees to make a living. The change in land use dramatically reduced the extent and quality of the grasslands throughout plateau, which decreased the population size and diversity of the birds these habitats supported, including the Sharpe’s longclaw. This situation prompted action from conservationists at Friends of Kinangop Plateau.

Sharpe's longclaw
Sharpe’s longclaw. Photo: FoKP

FoKP, a community conservation organization, has been running for about two decades. We initially started working to understand the biodiversity in Kinangop Grasslands and create awareness among the local communities, but later we started helping local farmers earn an income sustainably.

Working for FoKP has added to my passion for species conservation and granted me the perfect opportunity to pursue research in Kinangop. In particular, I have monitored the habitats and the resident bird populations over the past two decades, and have found that bird numbers, diversity and habitats have significantly reduced, with less than 10% of the grasslands and fewer than 700 individual Sharpe’s longclaw remaining.

Who’s protecting it now:

The grasslands have received little conservation attention other than from FoKP. Our efforts have helped raise awareness about species and habitat conservation among a large proportion of local residents. Together with our strategic partner Nature Kenya and other partners, we have bought four grassland nature reserves, totaling over 200 acres, which provides suitable habitat for the Sharpe’s longclaw and other grassland biodiversity. We have also built a Resources Centre for training and creating conservation awareness among local communities. Finally, and most importantly, to complement sheep farming, FoKP established a Cooperative Society, an initiative that involves working with more than 30 local farmers who control over 600 acres of grasslands. FoKP buys their wool products at favorable prices, serving as an incentive for them to maintain the grasslands.

wool
A woolen door mat produced at the FoKP workshop.

What this place needs:

There’s a need to incentivize livestock rearing amongst farmers — especially for those farms harboring high numbers of Sharpe’s longclaw — because it’s more compatible with bird conservation than continued conversion of grasslands to cropland. While livestock can still disturb or trample longclaw nests without the right precautions, the re-adoption of this economic model would lead to a positive impact for the biodiversity currently living on the edge of extinction.

black-headed heron
A black-headed heron in newly cultivated grasslands. Photo: FoKP

In the past few years, a support system has revitalized livestock rearing in the region, which is good news for maintaining and hopefully increasing the extent of the grasslands. Research has shown that sustainable open livestock grazing can be beneficial to the endangered Sharpe’s longclaw, which requires short grass with tussock. This requires farmers to maintain the right numbers of livestock in each of these grasslands to avoid overgrazing and ensure optimum productivity of livestock and biodiversity sustainability.

A few challenges still hinder the wide adoption of livestock rearing, and solving them would mean significant success in saving the grassland habitat and its biodiversity:

    1. Inadequate financial capacity of farmers and landowners is preventing them from shifting to livestock rearing, such as purchasing good livestock breeds and building good-quality sheds for the animals. We would like to see several demonstration farms established across the grassland for residents to learn from and adopt easily.
    2. Inadequate skills in good livestock management amongst farmers, which could be addressed by training, workshops and exchange visits.
    3. Difficulty in sustaining a biodiversity monitoring scheme that offers a comprehensive, up-to-date dataset to help inform decisions.
    4. Fear of change by farmers due to insufficient knowledge about income rates, sustainability and markets. Socioeconomic research needs to be carried out, and the results effectively communicated to residents, to show them that open livestock rearing is more profitable than cultivation farming.

Follow the fight:

To see more of what we’re doing for the grasslands, visit our website: www.fokp.or.ke

grey crowned crane
Grey crowned cranes in Kinangop. Photo: FoKP

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

Previously in The Revelator:

Protect This Place: Burley Estuary, Threatened by Industrialized Aquaculture

Creative Commons

Oil Development Is Changing the Rules of the Game for Wildlife

New research shows that oil drilling in Canada’s boreal forest is changing how wolves, caribou, bears and other species interact.

Major ecological changes are afoot in western Canada’s boreal forests, and they have scientists concerned. The most glaring problem is a steep decline in boreal woodland caribou (​Rangifer tarandus caribou), listed as threatened under Canada’s Species at Risk Act.

“There are populations in Alberta that probably don’t have a couple years to live,” says wildlife ecologist Jason Fisher of the University of Victoria. “It’s bad. This is really something we have to address immediately.”

Some scientists and government officials have blamed wolves for caribou losses. And desperate times have led to desperate measures to protect the endangered ungulates, including culling wolves. But research published in 2020 showed that landscape changes like oil development and logging are ultimately responsible for caribou declines. Clearings in the forest, the researchers found, function like predator highways and aid the wolves in their hunting.

Now a new study in the journal Science of the Total Environment shows that development from the oil industry in Alberta is causing more than just a change in wolf-caribou relations. The research analyzed three years of camera trap data that also included other forest mammals, like white-tailed deer, moose, black bears, coyotes, lynxes and fishers.

Yes, the forests still hold a lot of wildlife, the study found. But not necessarily in a good way.

“What this paper showed is that these features are bringing animals together,” says Fisher, a study co-author, who also leads the mammal component of the Oil Sands Monitoring Program, which tracks the environmental impact of extraction in Alberta. “The industrial footprint changes the rules of the eternal game of hide-and-seek between predators and prey,” he adds.

Scientists are realizing this can have far-reaching effects across the ecosystem.

A Fragmented Landscape

Alberta, Canada sits above one of the largest hydrocarbon deposits in the world. But it’s also “unconventional” crude known as oil or tar sands, which are much harder to get out of the ground than conventional oil that’s in liquid form between rock formations.

The fossil fuel industry extracts deposits closest to the surface by razing the boreal forest and digging massive open-pit mines. Much has been written about the great harms that process causes to the environment and human health.

But from a production standpoint, open-pit mines extract less oil than in situ development, in which wells are dug in the ground and the viscous bitumen pumped out (often after heating or adding other fluids).

That process doesn’t create the same decimated landscape as mines — or the arresting images that have garnered the world’s attention.

cleared land with bitumen, mud
An oils sands mine in Alberta, Canada. Photo: Kris Krüg (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

But it’s still a significant industrial process.

First it requires cutting straight routes through the forest to run seismic machines that use ground-penetrating sonar to look for oil deposits. If producers find an area or “play” they think they want to develop, they use another type of seismic machine that requires felling more trees. These swathes are narrower, but are cut in a hashtag-like pattern, known as 3D seismic lines.

That maps out where in the play to start drilling exploratory wells, which then requires clearing larger patches of ground completely. If a suitable area is found, a wellhead is constructed.

“Once you have enough of those well sites in the landscape, you have to connect them up with pipelines,” says Fisher. “Then you need roads to service the pipelines, and all the pipelines go to a compressor station that gathers it all up and then sends it on down the line.”

All that development leaves industrial footprints of different shapes and sizes stamped across the boreal forest.

“Our job [as landscape ecologists] is to understand how that’s affecting what’s left, because the amount of forest removed is actually only about 10% of that land base,” he explains. “You might think that’s ‘intact’ — but it’s not, because in landscape ecology, shape matters.”

Predators and Prey

What happens when a forest is heavily fragmented? In the boreal, researchers found that larger mammals — especially predators — react more strongly to the disturbed areas when lots of deer and moose show up, which they usually do, because they’re attracted to the vegetation that grows after the trees are cut.

Moose and deer come for this new buffet, which attracts more wolves and bolsters their populations. The lines cleared through the forest also make it much easier to move around and hunt.

Along the way, caribou become an unintended target.

“Wolves encounter woodland caribou more often, which means they nail more caribou,” says Fisher. “And that’s one of the proximal mechanisms for woodland caribou decline.” Previous research found a similar scenario playing out in Ontario after large-scale disturbances like commercial logging.

Oil development in the boreal also enables coyotes, who thrive in human-disturbed landscape, to expand their ranges. And coyotes, the researchers found, were more likely to use roads when moose were around. That closer proximity allows for more coyote predation on moose — especially moose calves. And like, wolves and caribou, roads enable coyotes to run faster and hunt moose more effectively.

forest with series of lines cleared through and snow on the ground
Lines cleared through the forest in Alberta, Canada. Photo: Kris Krüg (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

Another recent study found that rare and elusive wolverines could suffer as more coyotes expand into boreal forests, competing for similar resources.

As for the region’s biggest predators, bears often avoid the clearings from 3D seismic lines, but the study in Science of the Total Environment found they’re more attracted to those areas (or minimally less repulsed) when moose are present. Bears may even play an unseen rate in moose declines. Moose populations in Canada are “all over the map,” says Fisher, and are dropping in some areas, including neighboring British Columbia.

Bears will prey on young caribou, too. They don’t seem to gravitate toward oil and gas development like wolves, but they also don’t always avoid those areas either, says Fisher.

“They just sort of seem to go where they want, when they want,” he says. “If we drive wolves down, my worry is that things like coyotes will take their place, but maybe also bears.”

Then there are the smaller furbearers like lynxes, red fox and fishers. The picture there is less clear. Overall things aren’t great for those populations. “They’re tanking fast, but we’re not really sure why yet,” he says.

Changing Climate

Climate has a hand in amplifying some of these changes.

Warming temperatures are increasing insect infestations from mountain pine beetles and spruce budworm, which have killed large swathes of forest. Once that happens, any rules in place to ensure more responsible logging are out the window.

“If mountain pine beetles have killed it, [loggers can] take the wood,” says Fisher. “And so you end up with these big moonscapes, which probably has something to do with moose declines.”

Warming temperatures also means less severe winters with reduced snowpacks — and that has also opened the door for white-tailed deer to move into the boreal. The changes in vegetation from logging and gas development have lured them north in such great numbers that they’re now the most abundant ungulates in boreal.

And as we already know, that drives wolf numbers up, and woodland caribou down.

“This interplay between climate change and landscape change is almost like a perfect storm of problems that have beset the boreal forest,” Fisher says. “We’re only on the tip of the iceberg now — we’ve only really started looking at this in earnest over the last couple of years and realizing, ‘Oh my God, we’ve got a real brewing storm on our hands.’ ”

Solutions … or Lack Thereof

So what’s to be done?

The most time-sensitive problem is the decline of caribou, but killing wolves likely won’t provide a long-term solution. Fewer wolves may boost the number of coyotes, who also prey on young caribou.

Invasive white-tailed deer could also increase in numbers at a greater rate if wolf populations fall.

Another problem is that land is still being cleared at a rate that’s detrimental to caribou.

“We can do a better job at landscape protection,” says Fisher.

Not to mention restoration. All companies are required to do reclamation, but that’s often a far cry from real restoration. Reclamation focuses on making a brown area look green, usually by planting something quick-growing like grasses.

Some companies have gone beyond Canada’s federal mandates and replanted native shrubs and trees. But a lot more of that is needed, says Fisher. And it will be a long time before the newly planted vegetation grows up.

caribou eating in enclosure
A caribou maternity penning project in Revelstoke, Canada to aid southern mountain caribou. Photo: Revelstoke Caribou Rearing in the Wild (CC BY-NC 2.0)

In the meantime, research suggests that wolves can be slowed down in other ways. A 2021 study found that erecting obstacles along linear clearings reduced the ratio of wolf-caribou encounters by 85% and black bear-caribou encounters by 60%.

“By managing animal movements that regulate predator–prey encounters, risk to endangered species can be reduced without the disruptive trophic effects caused by intensive carnivore removals,” the researchers found.

Protecting caribou when they’re young also helps. In British Columbia the Saulteau and West Moberly First Nations have had success with a program that pens and protects pregnant woodland caribou and the calves until they’re a few months old.

“I think the evidence is really clear that using multiple strategies is far better than just throwing all your eggs into the wolf-kill basket,” says Fisher. “And we can’t do that either because people see that as lifting the weight of responsibility from oil companies and putting it on wolves as a scapegoat, and that’s just not sustainable societally.​​”

There’s still a lot that needs to be done to understand the changes that are happening, he says. But the world should take note.

As Fisher and conservation biologist A. Cole Burton warned in a 2018 study, “The Canadian oil sands provide an early warning: as oil and gas extraction continues to drive national and global economies, the biodiversity effects we observed are a precursor of the potential future of landscape change in unconventional petroleum regions around the globe.”

Creative Commons

Previously in The Revelator:

What’s Really Behind Dwindling Numbers of Woodland Caribou?

In Austria the Government Pays to Repair Your Stuff

A Viennese repair bonus is keeping thousands of items out of the junkyard and inspiring other cities.

This story was originally published in Reasons to Be Cheerful. Read the original here.

Sepp Eisenriegler loves giving second chances: To the defunct electrical appliances awaiting repair or refurbishment, the hundreds of unemployed people he’s trained as skilled repairers over the decades and even the two rescue dogs that follow him devotedly around R.U.S.Z., the repair and service center he founded in Vienna in 1998.

It wasn’t always an easy road, but he’s noticed a sea change in the past couple of years. It started with Fridays for Future: “Attitudes started to change. We saw more and more young people in our weekly repair café and as clients at our repair shop.” When the pandemic hit, business increased again: “People were uncertain about the future and decided to save money by having things repaired instead of buying them new. At the same time, everyone had too much time and started cleaning out their garages and attics, finding all sorts of old things with sentimental value that they wanted to have repaired.”

And then came the Vienna repair bonus. The city of Vienna started the Reparaturbon as a pilot in 2020 as a way to promote repair and support local businesses. Through the scheme, which has since concluded, 50 percent of repair costs were subsidized by the city, capped at €100. The bonus, which covered anything repairable, from clothing and electronics to bicycles and furniture, was a success: Over 35,000 items were repaired through the scheme, saving 850 tons of CO2 emissions. Other Austrian cities had tried repair bonuses in the past, but the beauty of the Viennese model was in its simplicity: while previously customers had to pay for the repair in full and then jump through bureaucratic hoops for reimbursement, they can now simply pay half of the cost, with the rest reimbursed directly to the repair shop. In January 2021 Austria also reduced the tax (VAT) on repairs of bicycles, shoes and clothing.

Now a national repair bonus, which will kick off this month, will adopt the same approach focusing on E-waste, which is the fastest growing waste stream in the developed world. Eighty-three thousand tons of it land in Austrian landfills every year, of which only around 17% is recycled. The national repair bonus will subsidize 50% of repair costs for electronic and electrical equipment, capped at €200 per repair.

The price of repair is one of the biggest mental hurdles that prevent people from seeing it as a viable option, says Chloé Mikolajczak, a campaigner for Right to Repair Europe. “We find that if the cost of repair is 30% or higher than the cost of a new product, people don’t tend to repair.” Eisenriegler has often experienced this firsthand: “If we tell a customer that the repair of their washing machine will cost €152, they often say ‘sure, but for €250 I can buy a new one on sale.’”

Man leaning over desk in shop
Gasim, a R.U.S.Z. employee, prepares items that can’t be repaired for a trip to the recycling center. Photo: Kaja Šeruga

The repair bonus promotes a mind shift that will pay dividends once repair becomes the more accessible option. Since the Viennese repair bonus started, local repair shops have seen a rise in new customers, as well as a rise in the quality of repair, as people decided to splurge on better spare parts, says Markus Piringer from the eco-counselling NGO, DIE UMWELTBERATUNG, who also coordinates the Repair Network. “But I prefer the idea of changing the whole economic system — the repair bonus is just a single step,” he points out.

“The repair bonus is an excellent crutch to compensate for the failure of the market,” agrees Eisenriegler. A glut of cheap low-quality products combined with the high cost of repair due to expensive spare parts and labor have skewed people’s perceptions. A system change is needed in the long-term, including a right to repair on all products that are not limited to professional repair people, easy and affordable access to spare parts and environmental tax reform.

Until that day comes, the repair bonus model is gaining in popularity as a bridging measure. Both the German state of Thüringen and the city of Portland, Oregon, followed Vienna’s example with their own schemes in the spring of 2021. Eisenriegler, who has spent the better part of 30 years lobbying for sustainable solutions in Brussels, already sees the first signs of an EU-wide repair bonus. It is being discussed in connection with eco-social tax reforms, but he points out that the desired systemic change would make the repair bonus obsolete: “If we have a tax reform where labor is taxed less while resources become more expensive, we won’t be needing this crutch anymore.”

The Austrian repair bonus, which is expected to run until 2026, is financed by €130 million from the EU Covid-19 recovery fund, and is expected to subsidize 400,000 repairs. Piringer points out that Austria might have trouble meeting a steep rise in demand, since thereis a dearth of skilled repair professionals.

Luckily, Eisenriegler is already a few steps ahead. In September, 2021 he started a pilot program in cooperation with the Austrian Public Employment Service (AMS) and the Vocational Training Institute (BFI), in which 10 long-term unemployed people were trained in repair in a 6-month program. In a way, his story has come full circle: R.U.S.Z. started out as a work-integration social enterprise that turned about 400 people from marginalized backgrounds into repair professionals in its first decade. The plan is to extend this model to other Austrian states and abroad, and they are currently in discussions to add a repair specialization to the mechatronics course at the BFI.

He expects that the first graduates of this program might be entering the workforce in 5 years’ time, and they will find themselves in a very different world. The eco-design regulation that gave EU its first right to repair legislation in 2021 will soon include tablets and smartphones, and there are discussions about an EU-wide repairability index based on the French model, as well as several other policy initiatives regarding the right to repair. Coupled with a move towards environmental taxation, these changes could soon pave the way towards a world where repair, not replacement, is the first choice. Mikolajczak is looking forward to it: “I think it’s going to be a great year for repair.”

Hope for Coral Reefs

A new book tracks scientific research and restoration efforts around the world that are focused on saving this critical ocean ecosystem.

Juli Berwald’s love affair with coral began when she saw her first reef in college — and it changed her life. Mesmerized by the beauty of these underwater animals, she set out on a path to study marine biology, eventually earning a Ph.D.the ask

But events took her away from the sea and ocean research. Living in landlocked Austin, Texas, she became a science writer. Years later, on a family trip to the Caribbean, she dipped beneath the surface of the water again. This time she wasn’t greeted by vibrant colors and teeming life but by the quiet horror of a dead reef.

All the news she’d read about bleaching reefs and the myriad environmental pressures facing coral came viscerally to life. The grief from that experience stayed with her — along with a renewed concern for the future of the world’s coral reefs.

She channeled all that into a new book, Life on the Rocks, about the search for solutions and the science that’s driving “nuggets of hope” even in the face of a grave prognosis for corals. Already three-quarters of the world’s reefs have been damaged by warming ocean waters. Climate change poses existential threats to corals, and so do other human activities.

The book is also firmly rooted in time. In the years that Berwald spent researching and writing, her own life was a bit on the rocks as well. The story of coral is interwoven with a narrative about Berwald’s daughter suffering from a mental illness, a global pandemic upending life around the world, and a nation erupting in outrage over the murder of George Floyd and ongoing violence against Black Americans.

Berwald at first hesitated to include all those threads, but realized that climate change, racial justice and health are firmly intertwined. And sometimes, she says, we forget that science isn’t separate from the rest of life.book cover, picture of colorful coral

“Scientists are affected by sick children and political events, and I think we do a disservice to science when we don’t see it as part of what it is to be human,” she told The Revelator.

We talked to her about whether restoration efforts can be scaled, why the ocean needs an advertising agency, and what gives her hope.

You’ve been interested in ocean life for a long time. Why a book about coral and why now?

I grew up in the Midwest, and the first time I really realized there was an ocean on this planet was in college. I went to Israel and I was miserable with the program I was on. There was a marine ecology course offered for a week in the Red Sea, so I signed up on a lark.

When I put my head in the water for the first time and saw coral, I couldn’t believe we lived on the same planet with these animals. And these were animals that were building these forests, but they were like fairy lands. The incredible diversity of shape and form and texture I saw — it just changes you forever.

I fell in love with the ocean because of the coral. And then, of course, your career doesn’t always take you exactly where you want it to go. I thought I would study coral biomechanics because I was a math major, but that didn’t work out. I instead studied satellite imagery.

Sometimes you have to leave something behind in your life. And so I did. But then after my book Spineless, about jellyfish, came out in 2019, I’d sort of found an audience. I decided with a lot of trepidation that I needed to go back to the coral because it’s really the first great ecosystem on our planet that is threatened by climate change in a very critical and existential way.

I really wanted to go back and see how these animals — these great ecosystems that I first fell in love — are doing. What is the hope and what is the reality of what they’re up against?

What did you find are the biggest threats facing coral reefs?

Climate change is definitely number one on the list. If we don’t deal with climate change, the coral reefs have really big problems in front of them. It’s worth saying, though, that geneticists are finding incredible amounts of genetic diversity on the reef, and we don’t yet know how much that will allow them to adapt to this future warmer world.

Another big problem is water quality. Coral evolved in tropical waters where there aren’t a lot of nutrients. But once we started fertilizing land and having more people creating sanitation issues, there’s more nutrients in tropical places now and that’s hard for the coral to tolerate. It has led to a whole flurry of diseases that have knocked out a lot of coral.

The other thing that’s been really bad is overfishing and illegal fishing, which destabilizes ecosystems. But practices like blast fishing and cyanide fishing and just dragging nets and anchors over reefs can also physically damage reefs.

Author facing camera
Juli Berwald. Photo: Madeleine Tilin

What is the role that algae play in coral reefs, and how is that changing with warming waters?

The reason that coral can exist and create these incredibly rich ecosystems in tropical places is because they form this amazing alliance with algae that live in their tissues. And those algae photosynthesize, and they feed up to 90% of the sugar that they make directly to the coral.

That gives coral this incredible power source, and with that they make the great limestone reefs everywhere.

But what happens is when the water temperature increases by a few degrees for a few weeks, that alliance breaks up. And that’s what bleaching is — the color of the coral comes from the algae, and without the algae the corals are just clear.

The question of why the alliance breaks up is a super-active area of research. We really don’t even know who throws the switch, which one goes first. Is it the coral kicking the algae out? Or is the algae saying, “See you, I don’t like being in this stressed animal”?

The cool thing is that it turns out the coral can make alliances with several different kinds of algae, and what the scientists are finding is that after bleaching sometimes a different species of algae will colonize the coral. And some of those species actually have higher thermal tolerances, so they can remain in the coral under hotter conditions. But some of these new algae are actually more selfish and they feed the coral less sugar. So there’s a lot of tradeoffs happening.

It could be that the coral can survive on these more limited energy supplies until we’re able to deal with climate change. It also may be that some coral can switch to these new algae and some can’t. There’s lots of possibilities, but it’s what scientists call a “nugget of hope.” It’s really an evolving story that’s fascinating.

white corals on reef
Coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef, 2017. Photo: The Ocean Agency / Ocean Image Bank

You visited projects around the world focused on reef restoration. Which of those did you find particularly hopeful … and scalable? 

The scalable issue is the hardest part because reefs are massive. The Great Barrier Reef is bigger than Italy. When we think about restoring a few acres, and you compare that to the size of Italy, you see what a massive issue it is.

But one place where I saw a lot of hope was in Indonesia with a project by Mars, the candy bar company. It’s right in the middle of the coral triangle, which is the place of the highest diversity of coral in the world. This is between the Philippines, Papua New Guinea and Indonesia. There’s about 400 or 500 species of coral that live in that region compared to in the Caribbean where there’s about 40.

The problem in this part of Indonesia is blast fishing, where fishermen, driven by poverty, use explosives to collect fish, and that destroys coral. Even though it’s illegal, I heard one or two bombs explode every time I dove. But Mars, which has chocolate factories there, wanted to do something to bring back the coral reefs in this region.

They came up with this really simple rebar structure that’s about as big as if you put your arms out in a circle. It has six legs on it and you tie broken pieces of corals to each of the legs in certain places. And then network a whole bunch of them, like 100 or 200 or 300 together underwater, and stake them down on these reefs that have become rubble.

Within 18 months the corals regrow, and within three years, you can’t even see the rebar structures at all. And it feels like a very vibrant, beautiful, intricate reef. The cost per coral planted is about $1 to $2. That’s a great number because you have to replant hundreds of thousands of corals in order to make a reef healthy.

Then in the Caribbean, a lot of the corals aren’t really reproducing like they need to sustain themselves. So there’s neat projects going on with massive in-lab fertilizations, like these huge orgies, where they collect the coral spawn. Then they mix them all together and you get these larvae that they plant on Tinkertoy-shaped ceramic pieces.

Then they protect the coral and let them lay down their little baby skeletons and get big enough to have a better chance of survival once they put them on the reef. They’re able to replant tens of thousands at a time. Those projects are still ongoing, but hopefully that will help bulk up the amount of coral out there.

In the past we’ve sort of just looked at conservation in the ocean, like “let’s just protect regions and the ocean will come back.” But scientists have realized that coral are in such dire conditions, and it’s such a critical time for them, that we have to actively go out there and do things to make the reef more healthy [while efforts are ongoing to fight climate change].

At the same time coral scientists are actively looking for genetic strains that are more resilient to the thermal changes that are happening.

It seems there’s more reporting and concern now about climate change — at least as it concerns what’s happening on land. Is the story about what’s happening in the ocean being conveyed well enough?

I would say no. In the book one of the people who I follow is Richard Vevers, who’s in the documentary Chasing Coral, which follows the terrible coral bleachings in 2016 and 2017. He’s an advertising executive who started an advertising firm — the Ocean Agency — to get information to people about what’s happening to coral.

As I’ve followed him, I’ve seen his frustration at trying to get people to understand just how dire things are, and also how important coral is as an ecosystem. The numbers are stunning. A quarter of all marine species depend on coral at some point in their life. And between a half a billion and a billion people depend on coral ecosystems for their primary source of protein.

He gets so frustrated that some see coral as a lost cause already and throw up their hands. And that politicians are just not taking climate change as seriously as they should be. I recently spoke to him about the next [international global climate meeting] COP 27, which will be in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt. That’s on the edge of the coral reef where I first fell in love with corals.

These corals — their lives, their futures — will be decided just a few miles away up on land by people sitting in these convention halls. Richard wants to take the people from that meeting out onto this reef to say, “This is literally what’s at stake here.”

Creative Commons

Previously in The Revelator:

Vanishing: The Bleaching in My Backyard