We won’t be able to stem the tide of plastic waste until manufacturers are held accountable for their products.
We’re all culprits in the plastic pollution crisis — and that’s by design.
I was reminded of this recently when I ordered a set of carbon filters for my countertop compost bin. (Like most people, I don’t care for smelly kitchens.) The package arrived in a layered-plastic bubble envelope. Inside I found another clear plastic bag encasing the filters. Finally, adding insult to injury, each filter was wrapped individually in plastic. That made at least three layers of plastic for each filter.
Frustratingly, in an effort to reduce waste, I had created more. And I’m not alone. A recent landmark study confirmed that the United States is the most plastic-polluting country in the world. Every 16 hours Americans throw away enough plastic to fill a football stadium.
Adding to my frustration was a sense of helplessness. There was no way I could have known or changed the fact that these products were shrouded in layer upon layer of disposable plastic packaging.
I know millions of Americans feel the same way. We want to reduce our waste, particularly our use of disposable plastic, but we’re rarely given the opportunity. Even when sustainable products are minimally packaged or designed for reuse, they often must be purchased online (delivered in more packaging, often disposable) or at specialty stores (rarities). Countless times I’ve wished that I could have avoided buying things that created so much trash.
But what if, in demanding better of ourselves, we’re missing the point? The companies that design our products and packaging to be disposable not only created this system but are rewarded by it. Waste equals profit through cost avoidance.
Disposable products are cheap for industry, but costly to the rest of us. As taxpayers we have to pay for trash collection and recycling. As citizens we’re exposed to pollutants from excessive manufacturing and microplastics shed from disposable products into our drinking water and food.
Meanwhile our oceans and waterways are being bombarded with millions of tons of plastic every year, killing wildlife and spreading disease.
Marine litter on a remote stretch of Norway coastline. Photo: Bo Eide, (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0).
The cost to the companies making these wasteful products? Zero. In a shareholder profit-maximizing world, making disposable junk wins every time.
But what if these companies were held responsible for their products? Would it prevent the onslaught of plastic junk filling up our landfills and too often ending up in the ocean? History suggests manufacturers would design products to be more reusable, repairable and resilient, because they’d want to limit the waste they would have to manage.
Which brings us to an idea known as producer responsibility.
Producer responsibility programs have existed around the world for decades and have successfully increased collection, recycling and reuse for the products they cover. For the most part these programs regulate hazardous, hard-to-dispose-of products such as batteries, paint, mercury thermostats, carpet, pesticides, tires and pharmaceuticals. Dozens of states already have programs in place for these items.
For example, thermostat makers are required to finance and sometimes run convenient recycling programs to keep mercury, a potent neurotoxin, from escaping and causing damage. Not all programs require producers to collect their own trash, but they all require adequate financing for safe collection. Producers that redesign their products to be less dangerous or more reusable can often avoid higher fees.
Unfortunately we don’t have programs in place for single-use packaging and foodware, despite the fact that those products are also hazardous and hard to dispose of. That’s why we need to create them. British Columbia has already implemented producer responsibility legislation, and a handful of U.S. states — from Washington to Maine — are considering similar programs. If implemented, these programs would create jobs, generate revenue streams for local municipalities to further reduce waste and, in the long run, improve human health and help fight climate change.
With support and pressure from residents, we could see laws pass as early as 2021, forcing our product-makers to either be better or pay out.
The idea is even gaining support at the federal level, as members of Congress respond to growing calls from constituents to address the plastic pollution crisis. Even the remote possibility of a federal program may push states to establish their own programs first.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, industry groups that represent manufacturers of these products have already opposed efforts to hold their clients responsible, which is why we must continue to push our legislators to support these programs now and into the future. In other words, the jig is up — but only if we say so.
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.
Dozens of frogs, fish, orchids and other species — many unseen for decades — may no longer exist due to humanity’s destructive effects on the planet.
A few months ago a group of scientists warned about the rise of “extinction denial,” an effort much like climate denial to mischaracterize the extinction crisis and suggest that human activity isn’t really having a damaging effect on ecosystems and the whole planet.
That damaging effect is, in reality, impossible to deny.
This past year scientists and conservation organizations declared that a long list of species may have gone extinct, including dozens of frogs, orchids and fish. Most of these species haven’t been seen in decades, despite frequent and regular expeditions to find out if they still exist. The causes of these extinctions range from diseases to invasive species to habitat loss, but most boil down to human behavior.
Of course, proving a negative is always hard, and scientists are often cautious about declaring species truly lost. Do it too soon, they warn, and the last conservation efforts necessary to save a species could evaporate, a problem known as the Romeo and Juliet Effect. Because of that, and because many of these species live in hard-to-survey regions, many of the announcements this past year declared species possibly or probably lost, a sign that hope springs eternal.
And there’s reason for that hope: When we devote energy and resources to saving species, it often works. A study published in 2019 found that conservation efforts have reduced bird extinction rates by 40%. Another recent paper found that conservation actions have prevented dozens of bird and mammal extinctions over just the past few decades. The new paper warns that many of the species remain critically endangered, or could still go extinct, but we can at least stop the bleeding.
And sometimes we can do better than that. This year the IUCN — the organization that tracks the extinction risk of species around the world — announced several conservation victories, including the previously critically endangered Oaxaca treefrog (Sarcohyla celata), which is now considered “near threatened” due to protective actions taken by the people who live near it.
“We can turn things around. We don’t just have to sit there and cry,” says conservation scientist Stuart Pimm, founder of the organization Saving Nature.
But at the same time, we need to recognize what we’ve lost, or potentially lost. We can mourn them and vow to prevent as many others as possible from joining their ranks.
With that in mind, here are the species that scientists and the conservation community declared lost in 2020, culled from media reports, scientific papers, the IUCN Red List and my own reporting.
32 orchid species in Bangladesh — One of the first papers of 2020 to report any extinctions announced the probable loss of 17% of Bangladesh’s 187 known orchid species. Some of these still exist in other countries, but even regional extinctions (or extirpations, as they’re called) tell us that we’ve taken a toll on our ecological habitats. A similar paper published just days later suggested that nine more orchid species from Madagascar may have also gone extinct.
19th century drawings of orchid species recently declared extinct in Bangladesh.
Smooth handfish (Sympterichthys unipennis) — One of the few extinctions of 2020 that received much media attention, and it’s easy to see why. Handfish are an unusual group of species whose front fins look somewhat like human appendages, which they use to walk around the ocean floor. The smooth species, which hasn’t been seen since 1802, lived off the coast of Tasmania and was probably common when it was first collected by naturalists. Bottom fishing, pollution, habitat destruction, bycatch and other threats are all listed as among the probable reasons for its extinction. Even though the local fishery collapsed more than 50 years ago, the remaining handfish species are still critically endangered, so this extinction should serve as an important wake-up call to save them.
65 North American plants — This past year researchers set out to determine how many plants in the continental United States had been lost. They catalogued 65, including five small trees, eight shrubs, 37 perennial herbs and 15 annual herbs. Some of these had been reported before, but for most this is the first time they’ve been declared extinct. The list includes Marshallia grandiflora, a large flowering plant from the American Southeast that was declared its own species this past year. Too bad it was last seen in 1919 (and has been confused with other species for even longer).
The original Marshallia grandiflora holotype. Smithsonian NMNH (Creative Commons)
22 frog species — The IUCN this year declared nearly two dozen long-unseen Central and South American frog species as “critically endangered (possibly extinct)” — victims of the amphibian-killing chytrid fungus. They include the Aragua robber frog (Pristimantis anotis), which hasn’t been observed in 46 years, and the Piñango stubfoot toad (Atelopus pinangoi), which mostly disappeared in the 1980s. A single juvenile toad observed in 2008 leads scientists to say this species “is either possibly extinct or if there is still an extant population, that it is very small (<50 mature individuals).”
15% of mite species — This requires a lot more research, but a paper published this past August announced “evidence of widespread mite extinctions” following similar disappearances of plants and vertebrates. Mites may not look or sound important, but they play key roles in their native ecosystems. If 15% of the world’s 1.25 million mite species were lost by the year 200, we’re talking tens to hundreds of thousands of extinctions — a number the researchers predict will continue to rise.
Simeulue Hill mynas — An alarming paper called this an “extinction-in-process” of a previously undescribed bird that probably went extinct in the wild in the past two to three years due to overcollection for the songbird trade. A few may still exist in captivity — for now.
17 freshwater fish from Lake Lanao, Mindanao, the Philippines — A combination of predatory invasive species, overharvesting and destructing fishing methods (such as dynamite fishing) wiped these lost species out. The IUCN this year listed 15 of the species as “extinct” following extensive searches and surveys; the remaining two as “critically endangered (possibly extinct).” The predators, by the way, are still doing just fine. Here are the 15 extinct species:
Bonin pipistrelle (Pipistrellus sturdeei) — Scientists only recorded this Japanese bat one time, back in the 19th century. The IUCN listed it as “data deficient” from 2006 to 2020, a period during which its taxonomy was under debate, but a paper published in March settled that issue, and the latest Red List update placed the species in the the extinct category. The Japanese government itself has listed the bat as extinct since 2014.
Pseudoyersinia brevipennis — This praying mantis from France hasn’t been seen since 1860. Its declared extinction comes after some extended (and still unresolved) debate over its validity as a unique species.
Agave lurida — Last seen in Oaxaca, Mexico, in 2001, this succulent was finally declared extinct in the wild this year after numerous expeditions searching for remaining plants. As the IUCN Red List notes, “There are only a few specimens left in ex-situ collections, which is a concern for the extinction of the species in the near future.”
Falso Maguey Grande (Furcraea macdougallii) — Another Oaxacan succulent that’s extinct in the wild but still exists in cultivated form (you can buy these plants online today for as little as $15). Last seen growing naturally in 1973, the plant’s main habitat was degraded in 1953 to make way for agave plantations for mezcal production. Wildfires may have also played a role, but the species’ limited distribution also made it easier to kill it off: “The restricted range of the species also made it very vulnerable to small local disturbances, and hence the last few individuals were easily destroyed,” according to the IUCN.
Eriocaulon inundatum — Last scientifically collected in Senegal in 1943, this pipewort’s only know habitat has since been destroyed by salt mining.
Persoonia laxa — This shrub from New South Wales, Australia, was collected just two times — in 1907 and 1908 — in habitats that have since become “highly urbanized.” The NSW government still lists it as “presumed extinct,” but the IUCN placed it fully in the “extinct” category in 2020.
Nazareno (Monteverdia lineata) — Scientific papers declared this Cuban flowering plant species extinct in 2010 and 2015, although it wasn’t catalogued in the IUCN Red List until this year. It grew in a habitat now severely degraded by agriculture and livestock farming.
Wolseley conebush (Leucadendron spirale) — Another South African plant, this one last seen in 1933 and since extensively sought after, including high rewards for its rediscovery. The IUCN says the cause of its extinction is unknown “but is likely the result of habitat loss to crop cultivation, alien plant invasion and afforestation.” Oh yeah, and it probably didn’t help that in 1809 a scientist wrote that the species possessed “little beauty” and discouraged it from further collection.
Schizothorax saltans — This fish from Kazakhstan was last seen in 1953, around the time the rivers feeding its lake habitats were drained for irrigation. The IUCN did not assess the species before this past year.
Alphonsea hortensis — Declared “extinct in the wild” this year after no observations since 1969, the last specimens of this Sri Lankan tree species now grow at Peradeniya Royal Botanic Garden.
Lord Howe long-eared bat (Nyctophilus howensis) — This island species is known from a single skull discovered in 1972. Conservationists held out hope that it still existed following several possible sightings, but those hopes have now been dashed.
Deppea splendens — This IUCN declared this beautiful plant species “extinct in the wild” this year. All living specimens exist only because botanist Dennis Breedlove, who discovered the species in 1973, collected seeds before the plant’s sole habitat in Mexico was plowed over to make way for farmland. Now known as a “holy grail” for some gardeners, cultivated plants descended from Breedlove’s seeds can be purchased online for as little as $16.95.
Craugastor myllomyllon — A Guatemalan frog that never had a common name and hasn’t been seen since 1978 (although it wasn’t declared a species until 2000). Unlike the other frogs on this year’s list, this one disappeared before the chytrid fungus arrived; it was likely wiped out when agriculture destroyed its only habitat.
Spined dwarf mantis (Ameles fasciipennis) — This Italian praying mantis was only scientifically collected once, in or around 1871, and never seen again. The IUCN says the genus’s taxonomy is “rather confusing and further analysis need to be done to confirm the validity of this species.” Here’s what we do know, though: There are none to be found today, despite extensive surveys.
Scleria chevalieri — This Senagalese plant, last seen in 1929, once grew in swamps that have since been drained to irrigate local gardens.
Hawai‘i yellowwood (Ochrosia kilaueaensis) — This tree hasn’t been seen since 1927. Its rainforest habitat has been severely degraded by invasive plants and goats, as well as fires. It’s currently listed as endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, but the IUCN declared it extinct this past year.
Roystonea stellate — Scientists only collected this Cuban palm tree a single time, back in 1939. Several searches have failed to uncover evidence of its continued existence, probably due to conversion of its only habitats to coffee plantations.
Jalpa false brook salamander (Pseudoeurycea exspectata) — Small farms, cattle grazing and logging appear to have wiped out this once-common Guatemalan amphibian, last seen in 1976. At least 16 surveys since 1985 did not find any evidence of the species’ continued existence.
Faramea chiapensis — Only collected once in 1953, this Mexican plant lost its cloud-forest habitat to colonialism and deforestation.
Euchorium cubense — Last seen in 1924, this Cuban flowering plant — the only member of its genus — has long been assumed lost. The IUCN characterized it as extinct in 2020 along with Banara wilsonii, another Cuban plant last seen in 1938 before its habitat was cleared for a sugarcane plantation.
Aloe silicicola — Last seen in 1920, this plant from the mountains of Madagascar enters the IUCN Red List as “extinct in the wild” due to a vague reference that it still exists in a botanical garden. Its previous habitat has been the site of frequent fires.
Chitala lopis — A large fish from the island of Java, this species hasn’t been seen since 1851 (although many online sources use this taxonomic name for other “featherback” fish species that still exist). It was probably wiped out by a wide range of habitat-degrading factors, including pollution, unsustainable fishing and near-complete deforestation around nearby rivers.
Eriocaulon jordanii — This grass species formerly occurred in two known sites in coastal Sierra Leone, where its previous habitats were converted to rice fields in the 1950s.
Amomum sumatranum — A relative of cardamom, this plant from Sumatra was only scientifically collected once, back in 1921, and the forest where that sample originated has now been completely developed. The IUCN says one remaining cultivated population exists, so they’ve declared it “extinct in the wild.”
Lost shark (Carcharhinus obsoletus) — This species makes its second annual appearance on this list. Scientists described this species in 2019 after examining decades-old specimens, noting that it hadn’t been observed since the 1930s. This year the IUCN added the species to the Red List and declared it “critically endangered (possibly extinct).”
“Lost shark.” Photo: PLOS One
Cora timucua — This lichen from Florida was just identified from historical collections through DNA barcoding. Unfortunately no new samples have been collected since the turn of the 19th century. The scientists who named the species this past December call it “potentially extinct” but suggest it be listed as critically endangered in case it still hangs on in remote parts of the highly developed state. They caution, however, that it hasn’t turned up in any recent surveys.
Dama gazelle (Nanger dama) in Tunisia — This critically endangered species still hangs on in a few other countries, and in captivity, but the death of the last individual in Tunisia marked one more country in which the gazelle has now been extirpated and serves as a stark reminder to keep the rest from fading away.
Protections for endangered species, disaster assistance and conservation were all targets of the most recent round of attacks on the environment.
This holiday season just about everything was different. Vacations were postponed. Parties and family get-togethers were canceled or moved online as folks hunkered down at the request of public-health officials. But one thing continued as usual: President Trump’s attacks on the environment.
In the weeks following the Nov. 3 election, Trump’s team continued its unprecedented onslaught on environmental regulations, with nearly a dozen new rollbacks or threats to public health, wildlife, clean air, public lands and the climate.
As the New Year approached, the assaults didn’t let up. Here are some of the most recent:
1. Cutting Disaster Funding
Despite a record-tying 16 weather and climate disasters topping $1 billion each this year in the United States, the Federal Emergency Management Agency proposed a plan to curtail federal disaster aid.
It would affect wealthier states the most, requiring that they have higher levels of damage than less wealthy states to get federal assistance.
The proposal, announced on Dec. 14, “would be one of the most significant revisions of federal disaster policy in nearly a half-century and comes as states grapple with massive fiscal shortfalls due to the pandemic,” E&E News reported.
The new rule is now open for public comments until Feb. 12 and would fall under the incoming Biden administration to move it forward — if it wishes.
2. Efficiency Rollbacks
The Department of Energy took two steps back on Dec. 15., finalizing new rules that ease efficiency requirements for some fixtures and appliances.
The move comes a year after Trump complained that showerheads don’t have enough flow for him to wash his hair and toilets need to be flushed 10 or 15 times, which earned him a hearty amount of ridicule on social media.
But his new rules are no laughing matter when it comes to conservation and efficiency.
One of the rules would roll back a water-efficiency requirement for showerheads put in place by Congress in 1992 during the George H.W. Bush administration. The other would allow for some new washers and dryers to use more water and energy.
Both would amount to more needlessly wasted energy, water and money.
3. No Help for Monarchs
Monarch butterflies stop in Beatrice, NE enroute to Mexico. Photo: John Carrel, (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)
Monarch butterflies on both the east and west coasts are in perilous decline, with populations falling 80% or more. So it made sense that on Dec. 15 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ruled that the butterflies were in need of protection under the Endangered Species Act. But the agency unfortunately decided those protections wouldn’t be immediately forthcoming.
Monarchs were essentially told to get in line behind other species awaiting protection — and there are a lot of those these days. “The Trump administration has listed only 25 species — fewer than any since the [Endangered Species] act took effect in 1973,” the AP reported. “The Obama administration added 360.”
The current plan proposes delaying action to list monarchs until 2024, which would then be followed by another year of public comment and development of the final rule: time the species may not have.
4. Pardons
In late December Trump issued dozens of pardons and commutations in what The Guardiancalled “another audacious application of presidential power to reward loyalists.” The list included predictable names of political allies like Paul Manafort and Roger Stone, but among them was a pardon for Utah state Rep. Phil Lyman.
Lyman has railed against the federal management of public lands and in 2015, when he was serving as a San Juan County commissioner, he led 50 all-terrain vehicles on a ride through Utah’s Recapture Canyon. The area had been closed to motorized vehicle traffic to protect archeological sites. The illegal stunt earned him 5 days in jail and a $96,000 fine.
5. Airplane Emissions
On Dec. 28 the EPA finalized the first rule regulating greenhouse gas emissions from commercial airplanes. But hold your applause: The historic step isn’t likely to amount to much.
The agency said that all the planes likely to be affected by the rule would be compliant by the date required, and therefore, EPA doesn’t think there’ll be any emission reductions associated with the greenhouse gas regulations or that they’ll help spur technical improvements that wouldn’t already have happened.
This “do-nothing rule,” as environmental groups have dubbed it, may be hard for the Biden administration to quickly undo as the EPA has decided to forgo the usual 30-day waiting period between the publication of the final rule and its implementation.
“The agency has used the procedural tactic — which is legally allowed with ‘good cause’ — in recent weeks in an apparent effort to obstruct the incoming Biden administration,” E&E News reported.
6. Endangered Species Act
The outgoing Trump administration took two more swings at the Endangered Species Act, which it has worked to undo in the last four years.
On Dec. 15 the administration finalized a rule that narrowed the definition of habitat to only areas that currently support a species. This would eliminate the government’s ability to protect areas that could help support species in the future and areas previously occupied by the species. The move limits the tools available to protect endangered species, many of which have seen their historic range greatly diminished by development, agriculture and now climate change.
Two days later the Fish and Wildlife Service undermined the law again with a rule that lets money trump science. The change would allow the agency to omit areas from critical habitat designation if a review of the economic costs to industry outweigh the ecological benefits.
Pandemics and other disasters showed us what we have to lose — and how hard people are working to save the planet.
What a year.
Looking back on 2020 is probably enough to start most of us screaming, but if we’re going to move forward in 2021 we need to find out how we got here — and what steps people are taking to push us back in the right direction.
Here are a dozen Revelator articles from the past year that reflect that need. Many of them dig into dark topics — that’s hard to avoid when writing about the environment these days — but you’ll also find information and stories that may help guide us through the shadows.
Our contributors offered expert ideas and perspective about pandemics, climate change, the Trump administration and more.
This was the year of Tiger King and COVID-19. But that’s just scratching the surface.
Every month The Revelator invites top experts from around the world to share their insights into the environmental issues defining the news — and sometimes the topics people should be talking about but aren’t.
This year the pandemic dominated our Ideas section, as did the damaging impacts of the Trump administration. We also addressed the science and policies of environmental justice, climate change and more, including a few moving personal narratives from people directly involved in those efforts.
Here are 12 of the essays and op-eds that stuck with us as we closed the door on a very difficult year:
Tiger King: 5 Lessons From Beneath the Mayhem — The famously salacious docuseries left reality on the cutting-room floor. Two conservationists filled us in on what the producers missed.
We survived the pandemic, the election and worsening climate change — but not without a few scars. Now’s the time to stay safe and build resilience.
Let’s be honest: This has been a truly exhausting year.
We started 2020 already worn thin by three years of the Trump administration, with its constant assaults on the environment and human decency on display almost every single day — and it got worse from there.
In February the coronavirus pandemic hit and took off like a wildfire, killing hundreds of thousands of people in this country and leaving millions underemployed or without jobs, healthcare, homes or beloved family and friends.
The virus would have been bad enough on its own, but the willful, outrageous failure of the Trump administration to address it, and the failure of many state and local elected officials as well, made it all much worse — and so much more exhausting.
But then, that failure shouldn’t have come as a surprise. The denial of climate science from just about everyone on the far right — fueled by corporate influencers, Fox News, social-media platforms and their soul-draining ilk — had already showed us that science denial could rear its ugly head the next time we faced a crisis.
And it did, in spades.
Of course, COVID-19 wasn’t the only thing to sap our strength this year. The pandemic came alongside seemingly countless racial injustices, angry protests, violence and intimidation by right-wing extremists, and the worst election season this country has ever seen — one characterized more than anything else by a bloviating, habitual liar seeking reelection.
His performance in the first presidential debate — like watching a rabid dog on stage — may be what pushed my own exhaustion past the breaking point. From then on the election kept going downhill, my doomscrolling went into hyperdrive, and our collective grief continued to swell while more and more people got sick and died.
And yet it kept getting worse. Spurred on by Trump’s lies about the virus, people and communities “debated” whether they should or should not wear masks, stay home, stop partying, stop coming to the office — an endless fuel of “free-dumbness” driven once again by the increasingly righter-than-ever right-wing media and what passes for leadership in the Grand Old Party.
And through it all, the world experienced record temperatures, species went extinct, millions were displaced by the world’s worst hurricane season and endless fires, and…and…and…
…and a record 81 million people stood up and voted for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. More voters turned out this year than any election in history, and many of us had to fight to get our votes and our voices recognized.
Maybe we weren’t so exhausted, after all? Or maybe we tapped into some final reserve of strength, saved for just such an emergency.
So here’s where we are now: Although the shockwaves of 2020 will be felt for a long time, and we’re all obviously still exhausted, this devastating year is nearly over. Now’s the time to heal, to rest, and to take all the energy we would normally have poured into the holidays and pour it into taking care of ourselves and our loved ones.
And while we’re at it, stay safe and physically distant, wear masks, share scientifically accurate information, and help others to recover from the ravages of the pandemic so we can get back to the greater task of saving the planet.
And the Biden win — assuming it’s not stolen at the last minute by Trump operatives and Republican legislators committed to a coup — sets us up for a lot of success.
“Biden has put forward a bold climate plan with ambitious targets for reducing carbon emissions and support for both regulatory and market-driven policy measures,” climate scientist Michael E. Mann tells me. “If Democrats take back the Senate, there is real opportunity for meaningful climate action by the U.S. — and not a moment too soon. A Biden win will stop the hemorrhaging, but there is a lot of work that will need to be done in repairing our reputation on the world stage.”
Heck, there’s still a lot of work and repairing to do in general — more than ever, in fact, since we’re now four years behind where we should have been by this point.
But that work won’t be possible without taking care of ourselves. That’s why our team here at The Revelator is about to take a couple of weeks off to recuperate and recharge. We’ve published hundreds of articles and commentaries over the past year and we’re going to do it again next year — but if we don’t rest up now, we won’t make it very far.
I sincerely hope you also get a chance to rest the final few weeks of the year. I know that kind of rest is a privilege not everyone has.
So do our best to reboot and meet back here the first week of January. We already have a lot of good stories in development for the New Year, and we’re excited to share them with you.
Of course, before we get that far, we’ll have one more source of exhaustion to contend with: the drawn-out, sore-loser end of the Trump era. Just as the post-election period was filled with Trump shenanigans, malarkey and the attempted reversal of the election, so will the very last weeks be a chance for the outgoing White House occupants and their enablers to tear every bite they can out of the government and the environment.
So keep an eye out for tomfoolery — we will, too.
Rest up, exhausted readers. The fight to save our planet and everything that lives here will keep up in 2021 — and far beyond.
A broad, progressive coalition came together in the 1930s to bring the United States out of the Great Depression. It can be done again in the face of COVID and climate change.
You may not know it, but Democrats and Republicans share a growing concern about the climate and environment. With extreme weather events becoming more common, many young Republicans now question their allegiance to a party that denies the reality of climate change. After the destructive environmental policies of the Trump administration, there are high hopes among many Americans that progress will be possible under a new administration — even if Biden’s reluctant to abandon fracking or adopt all the language of a “Green New Deal.”
But to envision a path forward on environmental policy, we should remember some key lessons from the original New Deal, the 1930s-era policies that pulled the United States out of the Great Depression through a combination of relief programs, public-works projects, financial reforms and progressive regulation.
The first key lesson: The New Deal was implemented in D.C., but many of its policies emerged from earlier state experiments. A second point: The space for progressive presidential action was opened up by labor and grassroots organizing that didn’t just rely on elected leaders but shifted the political calculus of what was possible.
We should also be careful not to repeat past mistakes. For the New Deal had a major Achilles’ heel: In an attempt to secure support from Southern Democrats, many of its programs left Black Americans and other people of color behind (such as by excluding domestic and agricultural workers from Social Security).
For a new national environmental policy to be successful, we need to lift up state experimentation, provide political pressure and political cover for doing what’s right, and be sure to center, not derail, racial equity.
Our scholarship has been looking at just these issues for the past few years, examining how some states are trying to transition off fossil fuel in a way that protects workers and communities and addresses environmental injustice. Known as “just transition,” this notion focuses not only on the technical and policy aspects of power generation but also on the nitty-gritty of power-building to organize for change.
There’s good news to report from states and localities. For example, in keeping with its ambitious approach to greenhouse gas reduction over the past decade and a half, California recently declared that the state would phase out the sale of gas-powered cars by 2035, creating impetus for a market in electric and other zero-emission vehicles. Meanwhile, in New York, more than 200 groups have come together as NY Renews and won the most ambitious climate protection bill in the nation. Passed in 2019, it will dramatically limit emissions, invest in vulnerable communities, and chart a path to 100% carbon-free electricity.
Part of what’s making such policy change possible is power-building among those whose voices have traditionally been sidelined. As a NY Renews coalition member told us, “Power is built when you stand shoulder-to-shoulder and when you stand up for someone else, not just yourself.” So the group built a broad coalition, ranging from labor unions to environmental justice organizations to faith-based organizations, that aimed not just to reduce emissions but to support vulnerable communities.
A similar success story can be found in Arvin, California, a small town in the southern San Joaquin Valley, where local advocates have shown how to dig in against Big Oil. After launching a multifaceted campaign to keep new oil and gas drilling 300 feet from residential or commercial properties, Arvin quickly became a battleground pitting over-polluted residents against the behemoth fossil fuel industry. Despite the pressure, advocates launched a full-scale electoral push that brought in a new, progressive mayor and a wave of young Latina city council members who passed the first setback ordinance in California.
These are examples of state and local innovation — inspired by grassroots activism and multiracial and multisector coalitions — that should now make their way to the federal level, much as the New Deal picked up ideas such as unemployment insurance, minimum wages and labor protections from experiments in New York, Wisconsin and Massachusetts.
The combination of state experimentation, local power-building and attention to racial justice is all the more urgent now because we also need to make our way to a post-climate, post-COVID world. Both our environmental and public health challenges have some common themes and present an opportunity for a new narrative: In each arena we need to prioritize those with the highest risks, act to shield those we may never know, and learn to replace “me” — the spirit of self-interest — with “we,” the impulses of solidarity with people and the planet.
On the policy side, we can clearly learn from state efforts to address climate change. But just as important will be learning from state and local organizing. The secret sauce is not in the technology: moving away from an oil- and coal-fueled power grid to a people-driven power structure will require the science of coalition-building.
Power must be built to hold a new administration accountable, push it further toward bold climate policy and economic and racial justice, and create the political space for a massive federal investment in public health and clean energy. The future of America and the planet depend on it.
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.
In its final days, the administration is rushing to cement its destructive legacy with attacks on clean air, wildlife and public lands that could be difficult to undo.
In the aftermath of the Nov. 3 election, President Donald Trump has tried every trick in the book to avoid facing the reality of his loss. A barrage of lawsuits accompanied by disinformation campaigns has attempted to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the election.
But a close look at regulatory actions and executive moves shows that, even as Trump makes a show of refusing to concede or transition power to the incoming Biden administration, his team is pushing through a slew of last-minute rules and regulations.
Many of these changes will harm the environment and public health.
It isn’t surprising that an administration that has attempted to roll back more than 100 environmental protections in the past four years would step up its assault in its waning months. But that doesn’t make the continued attacks any less important. Here’s some of what’s at risk:
1. Tribal Lands
Tribes and environmental groups have fought for decades against a proposed copper mine in an area of Arizona known as Oak Flat, which is a sacred site for a dozen tribes, including the San Carlos Apache.
Now the Trump administration is pushing to fast-track a deal that would transfer ownership of the land, which is in the Tonto National Forest, to Resolution Copper, a firm owned by mining companies Rio Tinto and Billiton BHP.
“Last month tribes discovered that the date for the completion of a crucial environmental review process has suddenly been moved forward by a full year, to December 2020, even as the tribes are struggling with a COVID outbreak that has stifled their ability to respond,” an investigation by The Guardian found. “If the environmental review is completed before Trump leaves office, the tribes may be unable to stop the mine.”
2. FERC Shakeup
Just days after the election, Trump switched up the leadership of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which has a hand in regulating hydroelectric projects, as well as interstate transmission of electricity, oil and natural gas.
Chairman Neil Chatterjee was replaced by fellow Republican James Danly, who has a more conservative view on federal energy policy. Chatterjee, once known as a “coal guy,” had recently advocated for policies supporting distributed energy and for regional grid operators to embrace carbon pricing as a market-based solution for addressing climate change.
3. Hamstringing LWCF
The Great American Outdoors Act, a major conservation bill signed into law in August, allocated $9.5 billion to help fix national park infrastructure and permanently fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
But despite (falsely) hailing himself as a conservation hero at the law’s signing, Trump has already begun undermining the legislation’s effectiveness. An order signed by Interior Secretary David Bernhardt on Nov. 9 allows state and local governments to veto any land or water acquisitions made through the fund.
Chris D’Angelo at HuffPost called the move a “parting gift to the anti-federal land movement.” Montana Sen. Jon Tester, who advocated for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, wrote a letter to Bernhardt urging him to rescind the order. “This undercuts what a landowner can do with their own private property, and creates unnecessary, additional levels of bureaucracy that will hamstring future land acquisition through the Land and Water Conservation Fund,” he wrote.
Senator Jon Tester at a press conference to discuss the Land and Water Conservation Fund in 2018. Photo: Public domain
In another blow, officials and conservation groups in New Mexico were surprised to learn that none of their projects proposed to receive funding through the Land and Water Conservation Fund were selected by the Department of the Interior. Some believe the move is political retribution for being critical of the Trump administration and its policies.
4. Dam Raising
On Nov. 20 the Trump administration finalized a plan to raise the height of Northern California’s 600-foot Shasta Dam by 18.5 feet, which would allow for more water storage. The reservoir feeds the federally run Central Valley Project, which funnels water hundreds of miles south to cities and farms. That includes the politically connected Westlands Water District in the San Joaquin Valley, which formerly employed Interior Secretary David Bernhardt as a lawyer and lobbyist.
The state of California has strongly opposed the effort to raise the dam’s height because it would flood the McCloud River, protected as wild and scenic. Conservation groups also say the plan would threaten endangered species such as Chinook salmon, delta smelt and Shasta salamanders.
California Rep. Jared Huffman called it the “QAnon of water projects, meaning it’s laughably infeasible and just not real.”
The staunchest opposition has come from the Winnemem Wintu Tribe, which lost 90% of its sacred sites with the construction of the dam and faces the loss of its remaining sites and burial grounds if the reservoir is expanded.
5. Pesticide Changes
The Environmental Protection Agency announced on Nov. 20 it was taking away a tool states can use to control how pesticides are deployed. The action could further endanger farmworkers and wildlife.
A Section 24 provision of the Federal, Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act lets states set stricter restrictions on federally regulated pesticides in response to local needs and conditions. But after numerous states sought to limit the use of the weed killer dicamba, the agency will now no longer allow states to set more protective rules for any pesticides.
6. Migratory Birds
A gutting of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 took a big step forward at the end of November, clearing the way for the administration to finalize the rule change by the end of Trump’s term.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service released its Final Environmental Impact Statement to redefine the scope of the law to no longer penalize the energy industry or developers for “incidentally” killing migratory birds.
Pied-billed grebe on an oil-covered evaporation pond at a commercial oilfield wastewater disposal facility. Photo: Pedro Ramirez Jr. / USFWS
The agency’s own analysis found that the rule change would “likely result in increased bird mortality” because — without penalties — companies wouldn’t take additional precautions to help make sure birds aren’t killed by their operations.
That’s already proving true. “Since the administration began pursuing its looser interpretation of the law in April 2018, hundreds of birds have perished without penalty, according to documents compiled by conservation groups this year,” TheWashington Postreported.
7. ANWR Auction
The Bureau of Land Management announced on Dec. 3 that oil and gas leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would go on sale on Jan. 6, following a shortened time frame for the nomination and evaluation of potential tracts to be drilled.
“Once the sale is held, the bureau has to review and approve the leases, a process that typically takes months,” TheNew York Timesreported. “But holding the sale on Jan. 6 potentially gives the bureau opportunity to finalize the leases before Inauguration Day. That would make it more difficult for the Biden administration to undo them.”
Despite the fact that the Trump administration is intent on opening the door to drilling in the 1.6 million-acre coastal plain — one of the wildest places left in the United States — it’s still unclear how interested the oil industry will be. Or how readily they’ll be able to finance their operations. All the major U.S. banks have said they’ll no longer fund new oil and gas exploration in the Arctic.
This came despite the fact that the administration’s own scientists found that maintaining the current limits on tiny particles, known as PM 2.5, results in tens of thousands of early deaths each year. And despite the fact Harvard researchers found that those who have lived for decades with high levels of PM 2.5 pollution are at a greater risk of dying from COVID-19.
9. Border Wall
The incoming Biden administration has vowed to not build another foot of the border wall, but the borderlands ecosystem remains under threat as the Trump administration is continuing to push ahead.
In some cases wall builders are even attempting to speed up the work.
“That’s happening from the Rio Grande Valley of Texas to Arizona’s stunning Coronado National Memorial and Guadalupe Canyon, a wildlife corridor for Mexican gray wolves and endangered jaguars,” NPR reported. “At $41 million a mile, the Arizona sections are the most expensive projects of the entire border wall.”
In Arizona they’re needlessly razing vegetation and blasting mountains for roads in remote areas to help enable construction that likely won’t even take place.
10. Harming Whales and Dolphins
Trump may be leaving office, but marine mammals won’t be able to rest easy. NOAA Fisheries issued a rule on Dec. 9 allowing the oil and gas industry to harm Atlantic spotted dolphins, pygmy whales, dwarf sperm whales, Bryde’s whales and other marine mammals in the Gulf of Mexico while using seismic and acoustic mapping, including air guns, to gather data on resources on or below the ocean floor.
In an effort to further efforts for oil and gas drilling, nearly 200,000 beaked whales and more than 600,000 bottlenose dolphins could be “disturbed.” And “pygmy and dwarf sperm whales are expected to be harassed to the point of potential injury, with a mean of 308 whales potentially harmed per year, according to the final rule,” E&E News reported.
Dolphins in the Gulf of Mexico. Photo: Carey Akin, (CC BY-SA 2.0)
11. More Lease Sales
The Arctic isn’t the only place where the rush is on to exploit public lands. On Dec. 9 the Bureau of Land Management updated an environmental assessment for a 2013 plan for leases to extract climate- and water-polluting tar sands on 2,100 acres in northeastern Utah. But then just days late it hit the pause button on the effort.
While that one may be on hold, the administration did kick off the sale of leases for oil drilling on 4,100 acres of federal land in California’s Kern County on Dec. 10. The first such sale in the state in eight years could be canceled by the Biden administration and if not, would face legal challenges from environmental groups.
12. Cost-benefit Rule
One of the administration’s biggest parting gifts to industry — the “cost-benefit” rule — was finalized on Dec. 9. It would require the EPA to weigh the economic costs of air pollution regulations but not many of the health benefits that would arise from better protections.
“In other words, if reducing emissions from power plants also saves tens of thousands of lives each year by cutting soot, those ‘co-benefits’ should be not be counted,” in the EPA’s new analysis, the Washington Postexplained.
The rule would be a big blow to efforts to improve public health and curb pollution.
“The only purpose in making this a regulation seems to be to provide a basis for future lawsuits to slow down or prevent future administrations from regulating,” Roy Gamse, an economist and former EPA deputy assistant administrator for planning and evaluation, told Reuters.
Slowing down the Biden administration will continue to be a big part of Trump’s last month in office — along with the finalization of more rule changes to add insult to injury.
Legal experts have begun mapping which rollbacks will be quick and easy to undo and those that will take sustained effort. But one thing is certain: There’s a long road ahead to reverse dangerous regulations, restore scientific integrity and make up for lost ground on climate change, extinction and other cascading crises.
Three key measures will go a long way toward ensuring that gray wolves survive and thrive in the lower 48 states.
President-elect Joe Biden will soon step into a tangled web of critical foreign and domestic issues affecting Americans. As his administration begins work to address these complex challenges, issues that affect other species on Earth must not be lost in the shuffle.
One species whose fate once again hangs in the balance is the gray wolf, which the Trump administration this October removed from the protection of the Endangered Species Act in most of its range.
This delisting affects more than wolves: Numerous species and ecosystems depend on wolves for their long-term health. The most recent example of this comes from preliminary research results in the Yellowstone ecosystem indicating wolves exert a “predator cleansing effect” that may delay and decrease the size and spread of the devastating chronic wasting disease in native ungulates.
But the Trump administration did not listen to the science, starting in 2019, when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed a rule to remove gray wolves in the lower 48 states from the endangered species list.
Photo: MacNeil Lyons/NPS
The proposal, which would put wolf management in the hands of the states instead of the federal government, produced immediate outrage. A historic 1.8 million public comments opposed the delisting, and 86 members of Congress (in both House and Senate), plus 100 scientists, 230 businesses and 367 veterinary professionals, submitted letters of opposition. Even the scientific peer reviews commissioned by the Service itself found the proposal had inadequate scientific support.
Despite this overwhelming opposition and flawed science, the Service went ahead and stripped gray wolves of protection under the federal Endangered Species Act. In the process it also ignored the fact that gray wolves are still functionally extinct in the majority of places they once inhabited.
Why States Can’t Protect Wolves
Prior to this year’s comprehensive delisting, gray wolves living in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Washington, Oregon, Utah and California were already being managed by state wildlife agencies. In most of these states, this so-called “management” has been a debacle, as the agencies are often staffed and directed by hunters interested in “harvesting” wildlife for personal gain or, in the case of trophy hunting, ego gratification. If wolves are eating deer and elk in order to survive, these hunters view the predators as unacceptable competition.
For many of these state decision-makers, the attitude toward wolves is at best reluctant tolerance — far from what it should be: a desire for full recovery of the species and compassionate co-existence.
A radio-collared wolf watches near a group of wintering elk in the National Elk Refuge in Wyoming. Photo by USFWS / Tony and Ann Hough
Idaho provides the worst example of wolf mismanagement at the state level. Over the 12-month period ending June 30, 2020, the state allowed the killing of at least 570 of the 1,000 wolves estimated to exist there. The only thing that prevented it from authorizing even more killings was a provision that would have returned management to the federal government if population levels fell below an established threshold. This is completely unacceptable. Until state-agency staffing is more balanced, representing both the interests of hunters and those who appreciate wildlife alive, the agencies have no business making management decisions about wolves.
The bottom line is wolves need continued federal protection if they’re to survive and fully recover.
How to Restore Federal Protections
The Biden administration could begin ensuring protection of wolves through three initial actions.
First it should reverse the recent decision to delist gray wolves. The incoming secretary of the Interior could easily and immediately withdraw the rule in order to settle the inevitable lawsuit(s) that will challenge the legality of the delisting.
Second it should put all gray wolves in the lower 48 states under Endangered Species Act protection once again. The entire history of federal wolf protection has been piecemeal and fractured. Defining numerous different “distinct population” segments and pursuing delisting on a region-by-region or state-by-state manner does not facilitate full wolf recovery throughout their historic range; it only results in significant numbers of wolves being shot and trapped, and repeated challenges in court.
Third, once all gray wolves are again under the full protection of the Act, the administration should have the Fish and Wildlife Service finally develop a comprehensive nationwide gray wolf recovery plan. This plan is required under the Act but has never been made. The gray wolf was first protected way back in 1974; the Service has had more than 40 years to complete such a plan. It is long overdue. Once the recovery plan is completed, the Biden administration should have the Service implement it and monitor the results of the implementation. These actions will go a long way toward ensuring the recovery and long-term survival of gray wolves in the lower 48 states.
As one of North America’s most iconic and ecologically important species, gray wolves can and should represent the very best of our conservation efforts and science. This will benefit not just wolves, but all other threatened species in the United States. President-elect Joe Biden has the power to make that a reality.
The opinions expressed above are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Revelator, the Center for Biological Diversity or their employees.
The textile industry has a significant carbon footprint. But changing what our clothes are made of can make a big difference in cutting climate pollution.
Finding solutions to address the climate emergency means tackling the biggest sources of greenhouse gas emissions — those coming from the transportation, food and energy sectors. We’re learning to make more climate-friendly decisions about what we eat, how we power our homes and how we get around.
We don’t often look at what we’re wearing, though. And we should.
The textile industry pumps between 1.22 and 2.93 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year. The result is that, by some estimates, the life cycle of textiles (including laundering) accounts for 6.7% of all global greenhouse gas emissions. That’s the equivalent of every person on the planet taking a 2,500-mile flight every year.
And the problem is poised to get worse, as both textile production and consumption are increasing drastically.
Since 1975 the global production of textile fibers has almost tripled: 107 million metric tons were produced in 2018, a figure that’s expected to reach 145 million tons by 2030.
And the “churn” of fast fashion gets quicker each year. Some labels now release as many as 24 collections in a 12-month period, and clothes are often sold at pocket-money prices. Outsourcing labor to countries where wages are pitifully low yields cheap finished products.
This has triggered huge consumption. In the United States consumers make at least one purchase every week, which means they’re buying five times more clothing than they did in 1980. The United States has the highest demand for textiles, followed closely by Europe and then China.
The vast majority of textiles consumed in Europe and the United States are also imported. That makes clothing a key component of “carbon leakage,” in which the benefit of emissions-reductions in one country is offset by the tendency to burn hydrocarbons in another. In China 43% of greenhouse gas emissions from apparel production are induced by foreign final demand. Similarly, supplying overseas clothing markets accounts for 44% of India’s cotton-related emissions. We’re importing pollution when we purchase so many clothes.
Clothes for sale. Photo: byronv2 (CC BY-NC 2.0)
Materials Matter
The quantity of textile production isn’t the only problem. What clothes are made out of matters, too.
Unfortunately the use of unsustainable fabrics is on the rise.
The quantity of polyester in our garments has doubled since 2000, and now over half of all global fiber production is made from petroleum. It takes around 342 million barrels of oil every year to meet demand for plastic-based fibers. When those clothes are laundered or tossed, it results in even more pollution. The disintegration of synthetic fibers like polyester, nylon and acrylic is responsible for between 20% and 35% of all microplastics in the marine environment.
Another increasingly common fiber is viscose, which is derived from wood pulp. But that too is problematic: 150 million trees are cleared annually to produce the wood pulp required to manufacture viscose. With 138 million acres of forest lost in the last two decades, a fiber based on felling trees hardly seems sustainable.
Natural fibers, biodegradable as they are, would seem a better option. Hemp, jute and flax (linen) are all an improvement and have important environmental advantages. But they make much less versatile fabrics. Hemp is considered “scratchy” by many consumers, and jute is mainly used only for twines, packaging and carpets. There’s also a problem of scaling up those fibers to make any difference. Hemp, for example, currently accounts for a tiny 0.06% of global fiber production.
The best option may in fact be the one that’s right in front of us: cotton. Although it too has problems.
About three-quarters of cotton is now genetically modified and farmed using industrial quantities of pesticides and fertilizers. Cotton accounts for only around 2.3% of the world’s arable land, but it uses over 16% of global insecticides and relies on a higher percentage than any other agricultural crop of what the World Health Organization considers “highly hazardous pesticides.”
Between pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, the global cotton crop uses 8.2 million metric tons of chemicals. Those inputs impoverish the soil, pollute waterways, decimate biodiversity and often poison people, too. They also mean that the carbon footprint of cotton is extraordinarily high. Globally cotton cultivation accounts for 220 million metric tons of CO2 per year. It’s also a fiber that’s notoriously thirsty. The global water footprint of cotton is around 8.2 trillion cubic feet a year, the same as 238 bathtubs of water per person annually.
Cotton farming has helped shrink the Aral Sea in Uzbekistan 90% in 50 years. Photo: Anton Ruiter (CC BY-SA 2.0)
Go Organic
There is, however, a way of cultivating cotton which drastically reduces its environmental harm. Compared to conventionally cultivated cotton, organic cotton has 40% less “global warming potential” and offers a 91% reduction in freshwater withdrawal from lakes, rivers and aquifers. The yields of organic cotton tend to be marginally smaller, but because the input costs are far lower, profit margins are actually greater — between 4% and 30%.
This form of cultivation has repeatedly been shown to promote gender equality, community bonds, biodiversity, improved soils and human health. Rather than becoming individually indebted to corporations for seeds and chemicals, organic farmers form cooperatives and “buying clubs.” The long and opaque supply chains of conventional cotton become short and transparent, with cutthroat practices replaced by a sense of common purpose.
Organic cotton cultivation makes cotton farmers resilient rather than vulnerable. There’s safety in relationships that are based on reputation, trust and longevity. The practice of crop rotation and diversification offers insulation against fluctuating cotton prices. Farmers’ soils, too, are more resilient in the face of the climate crisis — not immune to drought, but far better placed to survive it because healthy soils retain water and nutrients.
These advantages explain why organic cotton is rapidly growing. Production increased by 56% in the 2017-18 growing season, and by 31% — to 239,787 metric tons of fiber — in 2018-19. Globally there are now a million acres of land dedicated to organic cotton, with another 138,000 acres in conversion. The two major certification bodies for organic textiles — the Organic Contents Standard and the Global Organic Textile Standard — increased their number of recognized organic facilities by 48% and 35% respectively between 2018 and 2019. Farmers, retailers and consumers are all realizing that, in an industry marked by environmental degradation, organic cotton is the moral fiber.
But even that ethical choice is insufficient, by itself, to make a significant dent in the greenhouse gas emissions related to textiles. Cotton now has only a 24.4% share the global fiber market. Most of us are wearing clothes made from trees and, predominantly, petrol. Those clothes are invariably produced in factories, and transported thousands of miles by sea and air, using fossil fuels.
Buying products made with organic cotton is part of the solution, but as consumers we can do more by choosing quality, throwing away less, repairing more and buying secondhand.
But it’s not just about consumer choices; the industry needs to do better, too.
We can pressure retailers to become signatories to the Fashion Industry Charter for Climate Action and demand to know what progress they are making toward net-zero emissions. The retailers themselves should read the writing on the wall and begin ridding their shelves and supply chains of polluting, carbon-intensive goods and practices.
Because until there’s a radical shift in how we clothe ourselves, we’ll keep on stripping the planet bare.
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.
