Linda Cayot: Lessons From a Life in Conservation

The famed scientist has played a critical role in restoring Galápagos tortoises and other species. Now retired, she offers four key takeaways for the next generation of biologists.

Linda J. Cayot’s scientific focus for the day was a male giant tortoise, part of her dissertation research on the ecology of these iconic Galápagos reptiles. When her study animal lumbered into a swirling torrent of muddy El Niño waters, the intrepid scientist jumped in, too. Together they banged against rocks, his carapace and her daypack catching on tree branches as they thumped in tandem down the river to the lowlands of Santa Cruz Island.

Cayot’s epic 1983 journey launched a 40-year career devoted to conserving the Galápagos Islands. She supervised giant tortoise and land iguana breeding programs; organized campaigns to eradicate invasive species; and coordinated repatriation of tortoises to their native islands. When she began working in the Galápagos, the islands’ giant tortoise populations were down to less than 10% of their historic abundance. They’ve grown since then, bolstered by programs she helped put in place.

Linda Cayot
Cayot studied Galápagos giant tortoises on many islands during her 40-year career. This 1982 photo is from Pinzon Island. (© Theresa Kineke Brooks, used with permission)

The goal remains to restore tortoise populations to their historic numbers and distribution. At the current rate, that might be achieved within two centuries.

For Cayot, who thinks of conservation in terms of deep time, it’s the trajectory that’s critical.

She retired early this year and has just completed co-writing and editing Galápagos Giant Tortoises, a synthesis of knowledge of these island endemics, including the 60-year history of their conservation. Cayot was honored in October with the Prichard Turtle Conservation Award for Lifetime Achievement.

Cayot is a visionary with a practical, one-step-at-a-time approach. If she hadn’t fallen in love with Galápagos, she says, she would have been conserving species somewhere else.

When I asked her about the lessons she’s learned from a lifetime of conservation, it came as no surprise that her succinct responses made little mention of tortoises or the Galápagos. Instead she focused on universal elements that speak to the human element of conservation.

Respectful Relationships: Value Everyone’s Input

“You accomplish much more conservation by having good relationships with everyone,” says Linda Cayot.

As a scientist Cayot worked with Galápagos National Park Directorate rangers who were fresh out of high school, as well as some of the world’s leading herpetologists and geneticists. She sought out people with the tools and ability to solve problems, regardless of their credentials.

Wacho Tapia is among of them. When he was a 17-year-old Galapagoan volunteer Cayot recognized his passion for giant tortoises and determination to save them. Now director of Galápagos Conservancy’s Giant Tortoise Restoration Initiative, Tapia’s years of working with Cayot ensure continuity in the tortoise restoration projects she initiated.

The respect Cayot demonstrated throughout her career is reflected in a small incident on Pinta Island. She asked Joe Flanagan, an American collaborator and chief veterinarian at the Houston Zoo, to document the repatriation of tortoises by photographing the park rangers carrying them to their release sites. One after another refused to be photographed. But when he said the photos were for Cayot, each ranger agreed. Some even primped.

“Linda recognizes that most conservation problems are caused by people, but she strongly believes that people are also the solution,” Flanagan says.

Long-term Vision: Conservation Happens Slowly

“Projects can take 50 years,” says Cayot. “That’s a hell of a long time! But those are the projects that push conservation forward.”

Cayot has always maintained a long-term vision. But working in the Galápagos honed it from years to decades and centuries.

The successful projects she worked on included repatriating tortoises to Española, the southernmost island. In the 1960s park rangers found just 14 tortoises there.

They took them to the Santa Cruz breeding center, added a male from the San Diego Zoo, and launched a breeding program Cayot later supervised. When young tortoises born at the center were old enough to survive out of captivity, they were released on the island of their ancestors.

In June Galápagos Park marked the successful conclusion of the project by returning the original tortoises to Española — 55 years after removing them — to join their progeny and the offspring they in turn had produced.

Cayot also had a central role in eradicating invasive species from the islands. When she first arrived in Galápagos, the southern rim of Alcedo Volcano was covered with Zanthoxylum trees. By the early 1990s, invasive goats were destroying the forest, a critical area for giant tortoises. Cayot coordinated Project Isabela, the largest invasive species eradication ever attempted anywhere.

It took nearly a decade. Today the vegetation is slowly regenerating. Full restoration will take decades more, but that’s not a problem in her mind: Cayot views Galápagos conservation in 100-year increments.

“I worked on the everyday details of Project Isabela, but I was thinking ahead to a century and beyond,” she says.

Serendipity: Learn From Surprises

“Don’t worry if it takes a long time,” says Cayot. “Emerging knowledge may result in significant changes and greater success in the end.”

In 1972 Lonesome George, the last Pinta Island tortoise, was taken to a Santa Cruz Island pen for his protection. Scientists later decided to return tortoises to Pinta, where the habitat was declining without them. Although they would not be the endemic Pinta species, they would still disperse native plant seeds and modify habitat to help other animals and plants thrive, scientists reasoned.

Lonesome George
Photo: Arturo de Frias Marques (CC BY-SA 3.0)

But the herpetologists working on Galápagos tortoise conservation disagreed, and breeding tortoises were never moved to Pinta.

It ended up being a fortuitous delay. Soon expeditions to Wolf Volcano, a remote island where a variety of tortoise species roamed, discovered living tortoises with mixed ancestry, including the Pinta tortoise. That sparked hope that scientists might eventually find others more closely related to Lonesome George — a better option for release on Pinta.

For now, though, this northernmost island remains without the tortoises that evolved there. And that may be for the best.

“We don’t know everything,” says Cayot. “The more knowledge we get the more carefully we can find the right tortoises for that island.”

Collaboration: One Solution From Many Agendas

“You can see the excitement growing when you come up with solutions no one had thought of before,” says Cayot.

When Cayot began coordinating Project Isabela, she knew it would only succeed if Galápagos Park Directorate and Charles Darwin Research Station worked together.

Because they’d never officially co-run a project, Cayot spent an evening sewing. She took a park hat and a station hat — each of which bore an image of a tortoise — cut them both in half and stitched them back together, making the bisected embroidered tortoise whole again. Cayot wore that hat when she gave talks, pulling it on if discussions became contentious.

Linda Cayot
Linda Cayot made this hat out of a Galápagos Park cap and a Charles Darwin Research Station cap to symbolize and promote the cooperation required for the projects they shared. (© Jane Braxton Little, used with permission)

The grand plan to restore giant tortoises to their historic numbers and distribution included an international workshop in 2012 that she facilitated. Scientists and rangers were beginning to design expeditions to Wolf Volcano. The geneticists focused on finding animals with genetic material from two extinct species and breeding them, a process that would involve multiple generations and take at least 100 years. Conservationists also wanted to find the highest genetic matches possible, but their priority was getting tortoises onto the islands, where they’re key to habitat restoration; they couldn’t wait a century.

These differences challenged geneticists and conservationists alike to be creative. The solution they adopted is the basis for an ambitious plan to revive extinct species and restore island ecosystems. They’re using the knowledge of the geneticists to select the best animals to breed in captivity. Those with lesser genetic material will be released to the islands of their ancestors, satisfying the conservationists’ goal.

“With everyone willing to think outside the box, we ended up with novel solutions, ones that we all liked better than our own individual plans,” Cayot says. “That can only happen when everyone values each other’s input and respects each other’s knowledge.”

Creative Commons

Biden Can Leverage Larger Trends to Make Climate Progress

Even if Republicans hang onto the Senate, Biden can use these three strategies to make major progress on climate issues.

With the next president of the United States finally decided, we can now begin moving on to the work at hand.

Joe Biden’s election creates an exciting opportunity for climate action. But there’s one clear hurdle: Unless the January runoff elections in Georgia for two Senate seats deliver surprising success to the Democrats, President-elect Biden will face a Senate led again by Mitch McConnell. That narrows the range of available policy instruments, but Biden should still be able to make real progress.

He has the advantage of the tide moving in the direction of clean energy. Market forces are shifting strongly away from fossil fuels and toward renewables and energy storage. State governments are moving in the same direction. And public opinion has shifted, with more people recognizing the importance of climate change and the benefits of clean energy. The trick will be to leverage these trends into faster and larger changes.

I’d advocate a three-pronged approach to take advantage of these trends: (1) aggressive use of established regulatory tools; (2) funding to improve and deploy new technologies; and (3) government support for state and private sector climate efforts.

The first prong was utilized heavily by the Obama administration.

Like Obama Biden needs to make aggressive use of existing law. Given a 6-3 conservative Supreme Court, it would be best to avoid anything that looks legally innovative and instead push as hard as possible on legally established channels.

That would mean strictly regulating conventional pollution from fossil fuels, using the Clean Air Act as well as other environmental statutes. Additional avenues include ramping up standards for methane emissions, cutting back on leasing public lands for fossil fuels, and higher fuel-efficiency standards.

There will be industry resistance to these efforts, but economic trends may help dampen that.

turbines in field
Wind turbines. Photo: Shawn Meng, Oregon Department of Agriculture (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0).

The second prong is legislative.

Although a GOP or 50-50 Senate will be a challenge, some kinds of legislation may have a chance of sneaking through.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski has an energy bill she has been trying to get to the floor that seems to have bipartisan support. The bill focuses on spending for research and demonstration projects. Even when the GOP controlled Congress during the first two years of Trump’s presidency, Congress voted to increase funding for renewable energy for the Defense Department and to increase funding for research into innovative new energy technologies.

If Murkowski and fellow Republican Sen. Susan Collins can be brought on board, it may also be possible to adopt energy-related amendments to must-pass bills.

Finally, increased funding for adaptation-related spending by FEMA, the Defense Department and the Army Corps of Engineers may also be feasible.

The third prong involves climate efforts outside the federal government.

During the Trump administration, many states increased their use of renewable energy and a smaller group have adopted serious carbon reduction targets. The federal government can defend these efforts in court; can provide states technical resources; and can use its regulatory powers over energy markets to reinforce state climate programs.

We’ve also seen a serious movement by investors away from fossil fuels and toward renewables. The federal government can support these trends through its regulation of financial markets.

And the power of presidential jawboning should not be underestimated. Presidential appeals to business leaders can carry considerable clout, as can public praise or shaming.

Even if Biden is handicapped by the lack of Senate control, a lot can still be done. And the climate crisis is too urgent for us to pass up any available tool for addressing 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.

Creative Commons

The Biggest Environmental Wins and Losses of the 2020 Election 

The planet needed a big win, and from the top to the bottom of the ballot there were a number of crucial victories.

Election Day 2020 — the day before the United States officially left the Paris climate agreement — didn’t deliver an immediate rebuke to President Trump or relief for environmentalists.

That would have to wait.

“The election hasn’t produced the outcome that the planet badly needed,” Bill McKibben of 350.org summed up in The New Yorker the following day.

But as the votes continued to be counted in battleground states, the mood shifted from despair to hope, and finally, on Nov. 7, to celebration when Joe Biden and Kamala Harris were pronounced victors.

So much was riding on this election — and not just in the United States.

“There is no pathway to meaningful global climate action without our federal government playing a prominent part,” wrote Mary Annaïse Heglar in The New Republic just before the election.

A Biden-Harris victory doesn’t undo all the environmental harm caused by the Trump administration and its 125 rollbacks of environmental protections, but it provides a much-needed opportunity to restore scientific integrity and take action on climate change, environmental justice, biodiversity and other pressing concerns.

That’s good news. And looking down the ballot there were also other environmental victories — as well as some places where ground was lost. Here are the biggest takeaways:

The Good Stuff

Few big-ticket wins were clear early except for the fact that Democrats held onto the House of Representatives — an expected but not inconsequential victory. And although their majority slimmed, several new additions will be a boon for environmental issues.

One of those is progressive Cori Bush, who cruised to victory in Missouri’s 1st congressional district. She’s the first Black woman from the state to be elected to Congress. The nurse, pastor and Black Lives Matter activist is also a Green New Deal supporter.

In gubernatorial fights, Washington’s climate champion Jay Inslee won re-election. So did Democrat Roy Cooper in North Carolina, which E&E News called a significant victory in the state’s push for clean energy.

Mark Kelly flipped a Senate seat blue in Arizona, and so did John Hickenlooper in Colorado.

Hickenlooper, a booster of the fracking industry during his time as Colorado governor, is not exactly beloved by environmentalists in the state. But his defeat of Cory Gardner was hailed by the League of Conservation Voters, which called Gardner one of “worst anti-environmental candidates” running this year. It was also the first time in 84 years that Democrats swept all statewide races in Colorado.

Along with those victories came one for wolves, too. Colorado voters passed Proposition 114, which will require the state Parks and Wildlife department to develop a restoration and management plan for the reintroduction of gray wolves. It comes less than a week after the Trump administration removed federal protection from gray wolves across the country.

Wolf howling
Photo by Steve Felberg/Pixabay (CC)

In other statewide races, Nevada’s Question 6, which would require electric utilities to get 50% of their electricity from renewables by 2030, was approved by voters. But how much that helps the state’s clean energy future is a matter of debate. Nevada has already passed similar legislation. Enshrining this benchmark into the state constitution could help protect it from future rollbacks — or it could make efforts to raise the target even harder.

Much further down the ballot, climate champions made gains in city council positions in major cities such as Los Angeles, Phoenix, San Diego, San Jose, San Francisco and Portland.

Denver also approved an increase in sales tax to help fund climate and clean energy initiatives. And Columbus, Ohio passed a measure that would help the city secure more locally sourced renewable energy.

“City leadership is important for advancing climate action but new research finds U.S. cities falling behind,” Daniel Melling, communications manager for the UCLA Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, wrote for Legal Planet.

The Bad Stuff

An anticipated, decisive retaking of the Senate by Democrats never materialized, and whether it remains in Republican hands won’t be decided for bit. Two Georgia races are headed to a January runoff.

If Republicans do hang on to the Senate, that will mean any bold new climate legislation — or likely any meaningful environmental legislation at all — coming out of the House will be stymied, especially if Mitch McConnell retains his role as Senate leader.

Meanwhile several Republican senators with dismal environmental records will be back, including Iowa’s Joni Ernst, Mississippi’s Cindy Hyde-Smith, Alabama’s Tommy Tuberville and Roger Marshall from Kansas. Lindsay Graham, who has a mixed at best record when it comes to climate legislation, also returns.

While Colorado may have seen a blue wave, Montana was awash in red. A Republican sweep across the state included a victory by coal-industry ally Greg Gianforte, who took the governor’s mansion out of control of Democrats for the first time in 16 years.

Gianforte previously said he “would advocate as governor for increased port capacity on the West Coast to get coal to market,” reported E&E News. Montana coal production fell 21% during the pandemic.

train snaking through plains
Coal train loading at Spring Creek mine, Montana. Photo: WildEarth Guardians, (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0).

“Montana didn’t just go Republican on Tuesday,” wrote Gwen Florio in The Nation. “It went deeply conservative Republican.” The effect of that will be felt not just on energy policy, but the fate of public lands and wildlife, including sage grouse and grizzlies.

In a new low, Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia became the first QAnon conspiracy theory believer elected to Congress. In addition to a record of racist statements, she ran on a platform that included blocking the Green New Deal.

Democrats had hoped to make a small gain in Texas. But even $2.5 million in backing from Michael Bloomberg couldn’t get Democrat Chrysta Castañeda elected to the Texas Railroad Commission, which oversees issues related to oil and gas — a state race that has worldwide impact.

The race was won by Jim Wright, whom the Huffington Post describes as “a hardcore climate change denier and owner of an oil-field services company.”

The oil industry may have also garnered a victory in Alaska. There Measure 1, which would raise taxes on some North Slope oil companies, is trailing by a wide margin.

But when you tally it all up at the end of the day — or week, really — even McKibben had to concede that overall things are looking up.

“It could have gone much better,” he wrote on Nov. 7. “(Specifically, a deadlocked Senate will make action on the dominant issue of our lifetimes, climate change, more difficult to address than it should be.) But it went.”

Creative Commons

7 Environmental Takeaways From the 2020 Election Season

Even while we wait for the final ballots to come in, several key themes are clear.

Well, that was interesting…and hair-raising. At press time the harrowing presidential race of 2020 remains too close to call, as do a few key congressional and Senate seats. The Senate may not even settle out until January, when Georgia will hold runoff elections and we’ll find out which party controls that house of government.

But while we wait — patiently or otherwise — for those votes to be tallied, let’s take a moment to step back and look at several big-picture environmental takeaways from the election season.

1. Climate Change Came Calling

Despite the lack of real policy debate — let’s face it, this was less an election of ideas and more a contest of ideologies — climate change played an unexpected and thankful role. That started most noticeably in the unannounced climate question during the first presidential debate. After that several political ads made climate an issue, and some Democrats stumped on it. We didn’t see any speeches solely about climate, but Biden and Harris brought it up strongly several times during the last days of the campaign.

And yes, the very real risks of climate change played a role in driving people to the polls. A survey conducted last month found that 58% of Americans were either “very concerned” or “somewhat concerned” about the threats of climate change. That included 90% of voters who favored Biden at the time. Biden and Harris spoke to that, and voters listened. Life lesson: When you talk about and take seriously issues that affect peoples’ lives, they lend you their ears.

This growing support for climate action means that if Trump ultimately wins reelection, and then continues to ignore climate (as he obviously would), there will be prices to pay on the international stage starting in January and again at the polls in 2022.

2. The Forgotten Crisis

But the extinction crisis did not get any real play in this election, even from progressive Democrats. Considering the oversized role of wildlife trafficking in the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic, preserving biodiversity will need to become a major policy initiative moving forward.

Luckily many environmental organizations made this a key call during the campaign, so we can expect to see some progress on this if Biden is confirmed as the next president. (If not, expect more Trump attacks on the Endangered Species Act and other wildlife policies.)

3. Equality

Racial inequality was one of the main themes of the election, but the candidates did little to address income inequality, the greatest driver of political and social unrest in this country. If we don’t take dramatic action about that soon, it will give further strength to the Proud Boys, QAnon conspiracy junkies and their extremist ilk — and that will spill out into environmental issues like livestock ranching, public lands protection and environmental justice.

Fortunately the presidential and vice-presidential debates, and Democratic candidates themselves, made a big deal out of other issues related to inequality, such as racism, LGBTQA+ rights and women’s rights.  Unfortunately, the fact that nearly half the country voted to reelect a racist misogynist — and many other candidates who rode on his coattails — does not bode well for the future. These are all issues that have deep environmental implications, so we as a people and as a country need to do a lot better.

4. Suppression

People like to vote. And record numbers turned out this year, even amidst the pandemic. But who knows how many more votes would have been counted — and how many races would have had different outcomes — if not for the 29 Republican techniques for voter suppression used during this election?

So come on, Republicans, stop trying to prevent our citizens from doing their democratic duty. If you can’t play fair, get out of the game. (And while you’re at it, stop suppressing science related to pandemics and climate change, ’K?)

Everyone else: Watch your back. The same Republican-appointed, Federalist Society loyalist judges who have ruled (and may yet rule) on so many of this year’s voting lawsuits will soon find cases about climate change and other environmental threats on their dockets.

5. Fossils

The Democratic Party needs to refine its messaging on oil and gas. It’s got some decent policies — such as ending subsidies and stopping development on federal land — but that doesn’t ease the fears of people terrified by a forced transition in their lives and careers. The evidence is clear that these industries not only harm the planet and peoples’ health, they’re also failing financially. The faster we transition those jobs, the less pain we’ll all feel when oil, gas and coal collapse like a house of cards.

6. Faux News

Speaking more broadly, the media landscape remains hopelessly bifurcated, and that seeds division within the country, reaching from politics to basic information such as COVID-19 safety measures and crises like climate change. That needs to change. To address this issue, education standards should include teaching media literacy — and all adults should be encouraged to learn how to spot disinformation and bias. (It’s telling that Media Literacy Week 2020 was held the week before the election.)

It’s all a bit bigger than this, obviously. Most people self-identify as belonging to — or diverging from — one political party first, then pick the media outlet that supports that worldview. But the right-wing media notoriously spreads more disinformation about environmental issues, so finding a way to break that chokehold will go a long way toward bridging that divide.

7. Money, Money, Money

An obscene amount of money was collected and spent on this election — a record $14 billion, according to OpenSecrets, which tracks political spending.

On the one hand, we saw an amazing increase in small, individual donations. That’s great.

But corporation and PACs poured cash into candidates’ coffers (either directly or in support of their campaigns), and it felt like most of that went to fund blatantly dishonest campaign ads.

And what’s the ultimate cost of those donations? Will special interests return with their hands out? We’ll never know for sure, since most of those dollars (on both sides of the political aisle) are hidden from the public record, although it’s certainly happened before. That needs to change if we ever hope to transform this economy and save the planet.

Creative Commons

Keep Looking Forward: 20 Instagram Accounts for Environmental Inspiration

Whether you’re stuck inside during the pandemic or just waiting for election results, these accounts will keep you motivated and connected to the natural world.

These days many of us have a natural inclination to “doomscroll” — that constant refreshing of social media so we can gnash our teeth at the most recent bad news.

There’s an alternative. Let’s call it hopescrolling — the art and act of looking for beautiful things and important information to keep us inspired.

With the pandemic and election results still looming over our heads, here are 20 of our favorite nature- and environment-related Instagram accounts. May they fill your days with beauty and drive you to fight for the planet.

iNaturalist

Some of the best photos from the app that helps scientists and everyday citizens keep track of the natural world.

Joel Sartore

The famed National Geographic photographer is on a mission to capture the world’s biodiversity before it disappears.

Everyday Climate Change

Six photographers team up to showcase the very real effects of climate change around the world.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

This is Amanda Perobelli @amandamperobelli taking over @everydayclimatechange Instagram this week and sharing my work about the Pantanal, the world’s largest wetland on fire, on assignment for Reuters with journalist Jake Spring Dorvalino Conceicao Camargo, 56, who works on a ranch, attempts to put out a fire with a tree branch Sweating from the effort, Camargo said he had never seen fires this bad. “Everything is suffering,” he said. Camargo recalled navigating the waters as a child in boxy canoes. Back on the ranch where he works, he showed the farm’s high-water mark – 70 centimeters (2.3 feet) off the ground – hewn into the post of a cattle corral. Even in a dry year it’s typically about half that, he said. This year, the floods never came. Only a little bit of water pooled in a ditch nearby, he said. Now as water evaporates in the dry season, the Paraguay River that traverses the Pantanal has receded to its lowest point since 1973, according to Julia Arieira, a climate researcher at Brazil’s Federal University of Espirito Santo. With Jake Spring, for Reuters Link for the full text and story in my bio @amandamperobelli #climatechange #globalwarming #climatecrisis #pantanal

A post shared by Everyday Climate Change (@everydayclimatechange) on

Virunga National Park

This park is famously home to mountain gorillas, but its account shows so much more.

Cornell Lab of Ornithology

All birds, all the time.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

#BirdsOfHalloween

A post shared by Cornell Lab of Ornithology (@cornellbirds) on

BBC Earth

We’ve all seen the documentaries, but there’s a lot more photos and videos to enjoy through this account.

Zoe Keller Art

One of The Revelator’s favorite nature artists. (Check out our interview with Keller here.)

Alex Wild

Among the world’s best insect photographers — and an important entomologist to boot.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A Megachile leafcutter bee gathers pollen from a summer aster. Saint Louis, Missouri. #bees #megachile #pollinators

A post shared by Alex Wild (@alexwildology) on

Carls of Ohio

A groundhog that lives in a friend’s backyard. Hey — urban biodiversity matters.

The Caterpillar Lab

So much color, plus background on some species (and body stages) that we tend to overlook.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

Caterpillar-of-the-Day Follow Along: Day 286⁠⠀ ⁠⠀ Like Some Heavy Fruit:⁠⠀ Big Poplar Sphinx⁠⠀ Pachysphinx modesta⁠⠀ ⁠⠀ Three poplar trees stand isolated in a large field in Gardner, Massachusetts. Like some heavy fruit or nut, the sphinx, clasping to remnant leaf petioles, dangle precariously in the wind. Far below, in the late July heat, I discover their frass and bits of discarded leaves. The big poplar sphinx is always out of my reach.⁠⠀ ⁠⠀ ——-⁠⠀ • Caterpillar: Pachysphinx modesta – Big Poplar Sphinx⁠⠀ ⁠⠀ • Range: Eastern and Central North America
, west across the Northern US and Canada.⁠⠀ ⁠⠀ • Host Plants: A specialist feeder on poplars and willows. Seems to show a preference for Cottonwood here in the Northeast.⁠⠀ ⁠⠀ • Season: Caterpillars active in the Summer⁠⠀ ⁠⠀ • Where are they now: Pachysphinx overwinter as pupa in soil.⁠⠀ ——-⁠⠀ ⁠⠀ If you would like to follow along with us this year you can find posts like this one here on Instagram, follow us on Facebook, or just visit the front page of our website to see our expanded calendar graphic. For the best experience, order one of our physical Caterpillar-A-Day calendars so you can follow along, add notes, and learn more, as we go.⁠⠀ ⁠⠀ ⁠⠀ #moths #mothsofinstagram #thecaterpillarlab #caterpillar #caterpillars #nature #naturephotography #science #entomology #lepidoptera #scienceeducation #naturalhistory #art #artandscience #buglife #exciting #insects #bugs #insectsofinstagram #followalong #lifecycle #2020 #macrophotography #insectphotography

A post shared by The Caterpillar Lab (@the_caterpillar_lab) on

David Attenborough

The conservation icon doesn’t plan to be on Instagram very long — hey, he’s in his nineties — but this account is gold.

Drone the Whales

Amazing aerial footage of cetaceans around the world.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

Humpback whale creating rainbows! 📷: @markgirardeau 🚢: @newportcoastaladventure

A post shared by Drone The Whales (@dronethewhales) on

Roger Peet

This amazing artist/activist frequently works with our parent organization, the Center for Biological Diversity, but that’s just a fraction of his inspirational output.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

This work, “Make it Through”, was the first artwork I made this year, all the way back in January, what seems like a lifetime ago. I was trying to rework the idea that inspired “Face It” (second slide) to get at something that I missed the first time. The bird in Face It is a Scrub Jay, enduring the storm in the black walnut tree that grew in behind my house in 2009. The bird in Make it Through is a Wandering Albatross- great pelagic voyagers, crossing vast oceans with hardly a wingbeat. That was something more of the endurance that I wanted to convey, and goddamn it has taken a lot of endurance to get through this year up to this point- and it’s not over yet. No matter how you are engaging with this experience I wish you the strength to go all the way through it and arrive, sunlit and with gentler winds, on the other side. . . . Make It a Through is available, send a DM. #art #print #printmaking #reliefprint #linocutprint #linoleumprint #reliefprint #blockprint #albatross #makeitthrough #justseeds

A post shared by Roger Peet (@toosphexy) on

National Park Service

Not only does this agency help protect amazing landscapes, it also employs some incredibly talented photographers. And they share great tips.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

“How to recognize different trees from quite a long way away. No. 1 The Larch”⁣ ⁣ Larix occidentalis, the Western larch, turns a luminescent yellow in the fall, lighting up slopes in golden patches. As the days grow shorter and temperatures drop, photosynthesis becomes more difficult. The tree saves nutrients by ceasing the process. Larch needles change color as chlorophyll (the light-absorbing pigment that provides energy for photosynthesis) is absorbed back into the tree, leaving behind a yellow pigment, xanthophyll. Eventually the needles drop off the tree, leaving it bare-limbed until spring.⁣ ⁣ Image: Larch trees in the western and southern portions of Glacier National Park turn bright yellow during the mid-to-late October.⁣ ⁣ #findyourpark #nationalparkservice #larch #glacier #fallcolors

A post shared by National Park Service (@nationalparkservice) on

Winona LaDuke

The famed Native American activist is a source of constant inspiration.

Public Lands Hate You

See what certain people do wrong when they try to celebrate the natural world — and remind yourself not to follow in their footsteps.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

The number of people who defend their off-trail travels as not having an impact is astounding. The thing is, humans are inherently lazy. We tend to take the path of least resistance. So, if someone wants to travel to the other side of a field, and they see a slightly beaten path that may have been taken by one or two people before them, they take it. This is how new trails are formed. The hiking community calls these “social trails”. They are unofficial trails that people use as the path of least resistance from Point A to Point B.⁣ ⁣ The problem with social trails is that as they become more frequently used, they become permanent. First the vegetation is slightly disturbed. The people that follow then beat the vegetation flat. Continued use compacts soils to the point that they won’t support new growth. This breaks up what was previously homogenous habit into small fractured pieces. It’s not good for vegetation. It’s not good for wildlife. And it certainly doesn’t make for good pictures.⁣ ⁣ The 1st picture was taken by @waterproject. The 2nd is a Google Earth satellite image of the same location taken a few years prior. Notice the difference? How can someone look at these two photos side by side and say that there hasn’t been an impact? How much longer do you think this area can withstand this amount of abuse before it comes a dirt hillside with a couple of flower patches protected behind wooden fences?⁣ ⁣ The next photos are close up views of what these new social trails look like, progressing from slightly disturbed vegetation, to fully flattened and dead vegetation, to fully compacted soils and new dirt “trails” that will require either human intervention or decades of natural forces to recover. This is the progression that we want to avoid. Resist the temptation to use social trails. Stick to the official dirt trails. They are obvious. They are generally wide enough for two or more people to walk side by side. They are a fully dirt surface with no vegetation present. You don’t need to create new trails for beautiful pictures that others will love, as seen in the last two photos.⁣ ⁣ #leavenotrace #poppy #wildflowers #ethics #mindfulness #publiclands

A post shared by RESPECT OUR PUBLIC LANDS (@publiclandshateyou) on

United Nations Environment Programme

This great account frequently features world-saving initiatives both large and small.

NASA Climate Change

Images and science about the planet. Expect lots of photos of melting icebergs.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

Study: If greenhouse gas emissions continue, Greenland and Antarctica’s ice sheets could contribute more than 15 inches (38 centimeters) of global sea level rise by 2100 – which is beyond the amount that has already been set in motion by Earth’s warming climate. • Full story: https://sealevel.nasa.gov/news/194/emissions-could-add-15-inches-to-sea-level-by-2100-nasa-led-study-finds • 📸: Ice shelves in Antarctica, such as the Getz Ice Shelf seen above, are sensitive to warming ocean temperatures. Ocean and atmospheric conditions are some of the drivers of ice sheet loss that scientists considered in a new study estimating additional global sea level rise by 2100. Credit: NASA/Jeremy Harbeck • #nasa #globalwarming #climatechange #sealevelrise #sealevelchange #greenland #antarctica #greenhousegas #fossilfuels #humanactivity #humanactivities #science #study #icemelt #iceloss #icesheet #water #ocean #carbon

A post shared by NASA Climate Change (@nasaclimatechange) on

International Dark-Sky Association

This organization is devoted to protecting us from light pollution, and these photos will inspire you to look up into the night.

The Center for Biological Diversity

Our parent organization’s Instagram account will both entertain you and keep you engaged in important activism. Just when you’re needed most.

Creative Commons

Conservative Court to Consider Four Key Upcoming Environment Cases

One legal doctrine that courthouse reporters are eyeing closely is that which currently authorizes the EPA to control greenhouse gas emissions.

The Supreme Court term that began in October will touch on a few significant cases involving environmental law.

Just as importantly, it could see attempts to elevate cases from lower courts to take advantage of the Court’s new solid conservative majority (newly confirmed Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett was sworn in Oct. 26, just in time to hear oral arguments on virtually all of this term’s cases).

While the few environmental cases will not be blockbusters, they may offer telling clues about the court’s future trajectory on the environment.

One legal doctrine that courthouse reporters are eyeing closely is that which currently authorizes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to control greenhouse gas emissions of carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act.

The Court’s landmark 2007 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA prevailed by a scant 5-4 vote (with Chief Justice John Roberts siding with the majority). The new 6-3 conservative majority could overturn that precedent if it were inclined to.

Right now there are no cases clearly headed to the Supreme Court to test this principle. But some might be expected.

The following cases have been scheduled by the Court for argument during the current term:

Texas v. New Mexico

This case involves a water dispute involving the two states, which means the Supreme Court has “original jurisdiction” (that is, it goes straight to the high court). The case involves interpretation of the Pecos River Compact that allocates the water of the Pecos River between Texas and New Mexico. The disagreement arose from a 2014 tropical storm, when Texas had to release water from the Red Bluff Reservoir because it was full. The question is whether this unused water counts toward Texas’ allotment. The eight sitting justices heard arguments (subscription required) in the case Oct. 5.

Florida v. Georgia

This case actually was already “decided” in 2018, but it is hardly over. It involves a dispute between the two states over water from the Chattahoochee, Flint and Apalachicola Rivers. It went before the court during preliminary phases twice and the court appointed a judicial adjunct known as a special master. The question before the Court this term is an appeal by Florida of a particular decision by the special master. It is not clear whether the Court will give it a hearing or make a decision.

BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore

Baltimore sued 26 multinational oil and gas companies in state court, claiming they had injured the city by causing climate change. It’s actually one of a growing set of climate liability cases. Two of the companies sought to have the case moved to federal court, where they thought they would have a better chance to prevail. A federal district and a federal appeals court left the case in state court. The companies appealed those rulings to the Supreme Court.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service v. Sierra Club

This case will test what documents must be made public when federal agencies are considering rules under the Endangered Species Act. It goes back to a 2011 EPA’s proposed rulemaking over industrial cooling water intakes. EPA’s rulemaking involved extensive back-and-forth communications with NOAA Fisheries and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In the course of that interchange, EPA switched from effectively saying the rule would harm aquatic life to saying it would not. The Sierra Club, an environmental advocacy group, sought records of the interchange under the Freedom of Information Act. The agencies withheld some of the documents under the “deliberative process” exemption to FOIA. Some observers see the case as a challenge to the recent trend toward broader interpretations of the deliberative exemption. The Society of Environmental Journalists has joined 28 media groups in supporting disclosure. For more, check out the recent SEJournal WatchDog Opinion column on the case.

This article was originally published by SEJ Journal and is reprinted with permission. © 2020 Society of Environmental Journalists.

Wolves to Lose Protection

A final rule to remove the iconic species from the Endangered Species Act has now been published. Read more about the science and politics of wolf conservation.

As expected the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service today issued a rule that would remove gray wolves (Canis lupus) from the protection of the Endangered Species Act.

The long-in-the-works move becomes effective 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register on election day — Jan. 4, 2021. It will put wolf conservation back in the hands of states and tribes, each of which would then have the right to decide on their own acceptable wolf population levels or hunting limits.

Ironically, the new rule comes less than a week before residents of Colorado will vote on a ballot measure to reintroduce wolves to the state. Many states maintain their own endangered species lists, which can offer protection if federal rules do not, but experts argue that states lack the resources to protect endangered species within their borders without federal support.

The announcement was made during an off-the-record phone call to which few media were invited, and to which this reporter’s request to attend received no response.

Still, it immediately generated criticism from scientists and conservationists, who have worked for decades to restore the species in the lower 48 U.S. states.

“This delisting is an unfortunate and politically driven decision as the best available science provides evidence that the gray wolf’s population is not fully restored throughout its historic range,” wrote Jacob Carter of the Union of Concerned Scientists. “Five scientists who are experts on gray wolf taxonomy, ecology and genomics reviewed the FWS’s proposed delisting of the gray wolf last year and found serious issues with the science.”

The Service and livestock trade groups, on the other hand, position the current state of wolf recovery as a major success. “Today’s action reflects…the parameters of the law and the best scientific and commercial data available,” Secretary of the Interior David L. Bernhardt said in a press release, which positioned the rule as part of ongoing efforts to “reform” the Endangered Species Act. “After more than 45 years as a listed species, the gray wolf has exceeded all conservation goals for recovery. Today’s announcement simply reflects the determination that this species is neither a threatened nor endangered species based on the specific factors Congress has laid out in the law.”

Conservationists argue that wolf populations have not reached sustainable levels and that delisting the species would then open them up to future hunting, which could further devastate populations. To see what could happen, look no further than Idaho, where wolf hunting is legal. Recent analysis by the Western Watersheds Project found that 570 wolves — including 35 pups, some just weeks old — were killed by hunters, trappers and government officials in the year ending June 30.

This delisting effort continues a twisting, turning path toward wolf conservation in this country, which has seen the iconic species gain and lose protection multiple times.

And as always, the story is not yet fully written. Conservation groups have already announced their intention to sue — a process they’ve won in the past.


The Revelator archives contain extensive coverage of the politics and science of wolf conservation. To learn more, check out these stories:

The Ethics of Saving Wolves

What Do Wolves Need to Thrive?

Rethinking the Big, Bad Wolf

How to Protect Both Wolves and Livestock

Will Voters Welcome Wolves Back to Colorado?

The Trump Administration Pushes to Delist Wolves — and History Repeats Itself

Can We Learn to Coexist With Wolves? Denmark May Have Answers

Tigers and Wolves: The Reigning Cats and Dogs in Conservation?

Turning Power Over to States Won’t Improve Protection for Endangered Species

(Correction: This article originally mentioned a 30-day comment period on this new rule. Because this is a final rule, there will be no comment period.)

Creative Commons

5 Reasons to Rethink the Future of Dams

The United States must grapple with a legacy of 90,000 dams, many unsafe or unwanted.

The tide has shifted on dams. Once a monument to our engineering prowess, there’s now widespread acknowledgment that dam-building comes with a long list of harms. Some of those can be reversed, as shown by the 1,200 dam removals in the past 20 years.

But the future of our existing dams, including 2,500 hydroelectric facilities, is a complicated issue in the age of climate change. Dams have altered river flows, changed aquatic habitat, decimated fish populations, and curtailed cultural and treaty resources for tribes. But does the low-carbon power dams produce have a role in our energy transition?

That’s a question some environmental groups and the hydropower industry have been discussing for the past few years, and it’s resulted in a joint effort to work together on increasing the renewable energy potential of existing dams while helping to minimize their environmental harm.

It’s just one effort to rethink the future of dams. Here’s what else to keep in mind:

Marmot dam
The removal of Marmot Dam. (Photo by Portland General Electric, CC BY-ND 2.0)

1. Climate change will necessitate a reckoning.

We’re already seeing more extreme weather, bigger storms and more severe droughts. And the effect of this is visible in our reservoirs. The Colorado River’s two biggest reservoirs now sit half empty after a two-decade drought, prompting calls to tear one down. California grappled with the other side of the problem in 2017 when quickly rising waters nearly caused a failure at Oroville Dam — the tallest in the country — and a public safety disaster.

2. Dam removal can restore rivers.

More than 1,600 dams have been removed in the United States since 1912. With each removal scientists are learning more about how river ecosystems respond. The results are encouraging.

For example, the removal of the Edwards Dam on Maine’s Kennebec River 20 years ago and the subsequent removal of the Fort Halifax Dam farther upstream have helped fish populations rebound and improved water quality. Sturgeon, striped bass, rainbow smelt and other sea-run species gained access to their historic habitat. Alewife populations returning to spawn jumped from 78,000 in 1999 to 5.5 million in 2018.

In Washington the sea-to-headwaters restoration of the Elwha River, with the removal of two dams completed in 2014, helped restore the estuary and has already seen nearly extinct summer steelhead return and rising numbers of Chinook salmon.

3. Watersheds are interconnected.

Removing one dam can help. But understanding and addressing interconnected problems in an entire basin is even better.

A collaborative effort to look at the whole Penobscot River basin in Maine resulted in the removal of multiple dams and the retrofitting of others. The end result was more than 2,000 miles of river opened up for salmon and other fish species and an improvement in hydropower generation.

In California an effort to remove more than 80 small dams in the Cleveland National Forest is expected to benefit native aquatic species throughout the watershed, including endangered Southern California steelhead.

4. It’s about more than fish.

Taking down dams can revitalize urban waterfronts, create recreational opportunities and drive economic growth. It can also make communities safer.

Public safety concerns were at the center of dam-removal discussions, like at Bloede Dam on Maryland’s Patapsco River, where nine people drowned. Dated and derelict dams that fail can also threaten lives and property, as those downstream from Michigan’s Edenville Dam found out earlier this year.

5. We have a climate crisis and a biodiversity crisis.

The unlikely alliance of environmental groups like American Rivers, which has worked to remove more than 200 dams, and hydroelectric companies shows the challenges of this moment.

Do we take down dams that provide hydroelectric power but critically endanger species? It’s an issue that’s been debated on the Snake River for years. And how do we ramp up clean energy production without further endangering wildlife and ecosystems? That’s something that states in the Northeast now find themselves contemplating.

Figuring all that out is likely to involve complicated tradeoffs, hard conversations and more unlikely alliances.

It will also necessitate more reporting to understand it all. At The Revelator we’ll continue covering the complexities of dam issues. And if you’ve missed our previous reporting or want to know more about these issues, here are links to our most important articles and commentaries.


Dam Removal

How Removing One Maine Dam 20 Years Ago Changed Everything

The Elwha’s Living Laboratory: Lessons From the World’s Largest Dam-removal Project

200 Years Ago My Family Built a Dam — Now My Organization Is Tearing It Down

A Dam Comes Down — and Tribes, Cities, Salmon and Orcas Could All Benefit

Boom: Removing 81 Dams Is Transforming This California Watershed

Drones, Algae and Fish Ears: What We’re Learning Before the World’s Largest Dam-removal Project — and What We Could Miss

Endgame Looms for New England’s Great River

Untangling the Politics of Dam Removal

Four Exciting Dam-removal Projects to Watch

Climate Change and Energy

Promise or Peril? Importing Hydropower to Fuel the Clean Energy Transition

Is New England’s Biggest Renewable Energy Project Really a Win for the Climate?

‘Science Be Dammed’: Learning From History’s Mistake on the Colorado River

Let Rivers Flood: Communities Adopt New Strategies for Resilience

Wildlife

What Would It Take to Save Southern Resident Killer Whales From Extinction?

To Restore Salmon, Think Like a Beaver

How Saving Southern California’s Steelhead Trout Could Also Help the State’s Watersheds

Save Salmon, Save Ourselves

Indigenous Communities

Dam Lies: Despite Promises, an Indigenous Community’s Land Is Flooded

Hundreds of Planned Dams Threaten Central America’s Last Free-flowing Rivers

Creative Commons

Want to Save the World’s Coral Reefs? A MERMAID Can Help

New upgrades to the collaborative ‘Marine Ecological Research Management AID’ can turn coral reef data into conservation action — just when it’s needed most.

When reef scientists go on a field expedition, our tools are simple: SCUBA gear, clipboards, pencils, rubber bands and waterproof paper. From Belize to Kenya and the Solomon Islands to Madagascar, these are the methods used by coral reef scientists for decades. We spend long days underwater in remote locations and often pass our nights without electricity, internet or running water. In the evenings, working by solar lanterns or headlamps, we painstakingly hand-copy our data from underwater paper into Excel spreadsheets.

I’ve spent hundreds of hours underwater studying the health of coral reef ecosystems around the world — being underwater to collect the data we need to understand the health of coral reefs is something scientists have gotten good at. But logging, sorting and tracking data to turn it into actionable conservation management has always posed a big challenge.

clipboard coral
Coral and clipboard. Photo: Emily Darling/WCS

A new platform called MERMAID has begun to change that.

MERMAID (Marine Ecological Research Management AID), which launched last year, is a first of its kind: a free, online-offline platform that allows scientists anywhere in the world to collect, analyze and share field-based coral reef surveys.

The platform was developed by myself and a team of colleagues at WCS, WWF and Sparkgeo. MERMAID is already being used by nearly 600 scientists around the world to track their reef data. And now it’s even better.

This summer our team over at MERMAID rolled out a new global dashboard, which allows anyone around the world to pull up a map of the globe’s reefs and get a quick, simple snapshot of how they’re doing. From how many fish are on the reef to the types of corals present, the dashboard provides a quick, straightforward breakdown of the most important measures of reef health and function.

This brings scientific knowledge quickly and directly into the hands of the people who need it.

And there’s never been a more critical time for that easy access.

The State of the Reefs

Coral reef conservation and people go together.

More than 500 million people around the world rely on reefs daily for everything from food and income to cultural practices, the protection of shorelines from sea-level rise and storms, and the economic benefits from fisheries and tourism.

fish
Reef-caught fish in Mozambique. Photo: Emily Darling/WCS

With half of the world’s coral reefs already degraded, and an estimated 90% projected to be lost within the next three decades from climate change, we’re at an urgent inflection point. We need meaningful action to reduce local and global threats to conserve and recover the world’s remaining reefs.

The Need for Data

Timely, accurate and understandable information on reef health must move from scientists into the hands of communities, governments and organizations to empower people and institutions to save coral reefs. This information tells us: Is conservation working? Are reefs recovering? What reefs are the most threatened and the healthiest? How can conservation help reefs adapt to a changing climate?

As field scientists we work in partnerships with local communities that manage and protect their resources. MERMAID’s technology connects reef data with the people who rely on coral reefs every day and the people who are working to protect and manage those reefs.

MERMAID screenshot
The MERMAID dashboard, showing an overview of the collected data.

For example, coastal communities want to know how climate change will affect the reefs that they so intimately depend on. Local governments want to know whether their policies are benefitting the reefs. International organizations want to know the global status and trends of coral reef health to advocate for appropriate actions.

MERMAID tracks important indicators of coral reef health such as live coral cover and reef fish biomass. This information is critical to understanding whether coral reefs are healthy, recovering or dangerously degrading, which triggers scientists, communities and governments to respond rapidly to diagnose an issue like destructive fishing or pollution and mitigate those threats.

Also, when a community has implemented a conservation project to help protect its reefs, MERMAID can help stakeholders track the success of those projects over time to learn what’s working, where and why. MERMAID turns scientific data into real-world decisions that will help save coral reefs.

Already Making a Difference

Since getting this technology into the hands of field scientists and communities on the frontlines of coral reef conservation and climate change, tens of thousands of data points have been uploaded by scientists from 10 countries, with many more to come. We’re getting this information to decisionmakers by working with governments at local, national and international levels.

Reassuringly, MERMAID shows us that there are still healthy, thriving coral reefs in our oceans and we have an opportunity as a global community to step up now to protect them. Last year more than 80 of my colleagues and I worked together to survey 2,500 reefs around the world, completing the largest-ever study across the Indian and Pacific Oceans. We found that 22 countries have around 450 functional reefs located in rare ocean “cool” spots, which inspired a new protect-recover-transform framework for coral reef conservation.

Coral bleaching
Coral bleaching is just one threat to reefs. Photo: Wendy Cover/NOAA

These results have mobilized us on an international scale to tackle other top threats to coral reefs such as unsustainable fishing and land-use change and pollution. Reducing these stressors, especially in climate “cool spots,” can help reefs withstand the effects of climate change. At the same time, we’re working with local and national governments to implement effective laws and policies to tackle climate change and unsustainable trade to protect our oceans.

There’s still time to save many coral reefs, and scientific information will help us do this faster and more effectively. MERMAID’s dashboard helps democratize the world’s coral reef data, bringing a digital snapshot of global reef health to critical conversations about sustainability and conservation. This will help us create a brighter future for the world’s oceans.

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.

Creative Commons

Extinction Rebellion Protests and the Glorified Notion of the UK’s ‘Free Press’

When the billionaire-owned media fails to cover the truth about climate change, should the public take a stand?

Considering the gravity of the situation, coverage of the climate crisis across the United Kingdom’s mainstream media is temperamental at best, misleading at worst.

While some of the UK’s major newspapers have increased coverage on the crisis in recent years, few treat it with the urgency it demands. In 2019 The Telegraph was forced to publish corrections after printing an article riddled with factually incorrect assertions by its former editor, Charles Moore.

This, regrettably, is not an exception. A 2019 study published in Nature Communications found that major media outlets in the United States and Europe provide a platform to those skeptical of climate change far more than they do mainstream scientists and climate activists. The researchers found that from 2000 through 2016 those who doubted global warming or attributed rising temperatures to “natural causes” got 50% more coverage than an equal number of top scientists.

It should come as no surprise, then, when the public chooses to fight back against this failure of the mainstream media to act on its duty to inform the public on social and environmental issues with accuracy and hold the powerful to account.

Last month Extinction Rebellion, the global environmental campaign group, made headlines when protesters blockaded three key newspaper-printing sites in England and Scotland and prevented them from distributing national publications owned by media mogul Rupert Murdoch, including The Sun and The Times. Their aim, they explained, was to disrupt the circulation of these newspapers as a result of their failure to report on the scale of the climate crisis and for “polluting national debate” on other social issues.

The protests were condemned as an attack on the UK’s so-called “free press” by many, including Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who wrote on Twitter that “It is completely unacceptable to seek to limit the public’s access to news in this way.”

Yet this glorified notion of press freedom in the UK is flawed to say the least. Six billionaires own the UK’s leading national newspapers, including Murdoch, whose publications have become notorious for espousing climate denialism.

While a few of the UK’s leading newspapers make notable efforts to report on the scale of global warming —The Guardian joined a major media initiative in 2019 to combat the climate crisis — this is heavily outweighed by those that fail to do so. The Times has received backlash from top scientists for its “distorted coverage” of global warming due to its undermining the credibility of climate science. The Telegraph, owned by billionaire British twins the Barclay brothers, has a similarly questionable record when it comes to coverage of the climate crisis. The Daily Mail, owned by Lord Rothermere, is another national newspaper that has become renowned for its climate skepticism, providing a platform to veteran climate change deniers such as Christopher Booker.

What does this say of the press’s apparent impartiality? Who is dictating which stories ought to be prioritized, and what are their interests? These are crucial questions seemingly brushed under the carpet by the very same individuals now hailing the UK’s “free press.”

And these are not theoretical queries: The UK ranks 35th in the world for press freedom, sitting below Ghana, Costa Rica and South Africa, according to the World Press Freedom Index. True press freedom is vital in advancing worldwide environmental protections, according to a 2019 report from Democratic Audit. The authors cautioned that journalists’ obstacles to investigating international environmental conditions leads to a failure to hold corporations and governments to account.

In an ideal world, these murky ethics would have been brought to an end by the 2012 Leveson inquiry, which, following the News International phone-hacking scandal, revealed the level of deceit and misconduct rotting at the core of the UK’s national media. And yet, eight years later, the same billionaires are at the helm of these publications, while the same predominantly white, privately educated men remain in the most senior editorial positions.

This is critical for multiple reasons. The owners of the UK’s mainstream media do not linger quietly in the background. They set its agenda and influence public opinion drastically. During the Leveson inquiry, Harold Evans — former editor of the Sunday Times — made clear quite how extensively Murdoch interfered with the paper’s content. He told the inquiry: “Mr. Murdoch was continually sending for my staff without telling me and telling them what the paper should be.” Other editors of Murdoch-owned publications have attested to this, from David Yelland to Andrew Neil, who himself told the Leveson inquiry: “If you want to know what Rupert Murdoch really thinks read the editorials in the Sun and the New York Post because he is editor-in-chief of these papers.”

Murdoch’s interference inevitably allows for a misrepresentation of the truth as he strives to protect his own vested interests. This becomes increasingly apparent with his publications’ reportage of the climate crisis. Murdoch has known links with the fossil fuel industry. He sits on the board of oil and gas explorer Genie Energy. The persistent climate skepticism littered across his publications is therefore no coincidence.

Even one of the most seemingly progressive of the UK’s national newspapers, The Guardian, was placed under scrutiny by investigative journalist Nafeez Ahmed, who noted that the newspaper is the biggest recipient of HSBC advertising revenue and is owned by The Scott Trust Ltd., a company made up of predominantly financiers. Ahmed described how The Guardian was just one UK media organization that had investigated but subsequently spiked whistleblower Nicholas Wilson’s story on HSBC fraud in 2015, “despite its unprecedented importance and public interest value.”

The political agenda set by those at the top of the UK’s leading national newspapers poses a bigger threat to democracy than any climate activist organization ever could. It is perhaps unsurprising that the media’s billionaire-owners mostly backed the Conservatives in the most recent general election. A recent study carried out by Loughborough University revealed that national newspapers overwhelmingly targeted the Labour Party with negative coverage, while particular publications reserved positive stories almost exclusively for Johnson’s Conservative party.

The media’s role in swaying public opinion is well-documented, and it’s not only about general elections. Right-leaning publications embarked on a vicious Leave campaign in 2016, fueling anti-immigration sentiments that inevitably influenced the EU referendum result. Such influence cannot be understated.

How, then, can those criticizing Extinction Rebellion so disingenuously accuse the protesters of threatening press freedom for temporarily delaying newspaper distribution? This is a question certainly worth directing to the Prime Minister, who threatened to revoke Channel 4’s license in December 2019 when, after Johnson failed to turn up to its leaders’ debate on climate change, Channel 4 replaced him with an ice sculpture during the debate, poignantly symbolizing the urgency of the crisis.

This is only one in a series of concerns regarding press freedom in the UK under Johnson. In February one of Johnson’s aides blocked select journalists from attending a Downing Street briefing. And just a few weeks ago, the Council of Europe issued a media freedom alert in the UK as the government blacklisted a group of investigative journalists, denying them access to information.

This problem is not unique to the UK. Murdoch owns media outlets across the world, including climate-denying Fox News, and his influence in Australia well-documented. The Australian, owned by Murdoch’s News Corp, is renowned for peddling climate change denialism. This past January, at the height of the country’s bushfire crisis, the publication repeatedly skirted reporting on the correlation between drastic weather changes and the climate crisis. While newspapers around the globe dedicated their front pages to the Australian bushfires, The Australian’s front page displayed a picture of a New Year’s Day picnic.

Meanwhile, charges of “fake news” — first in the United States and now around the world — encourage a dangerous crackdown on freedom of expression. If journalists are punished for criticizing leaders, what hope do we have of holding the powerful to account for their actions?

In that context, the free expression of Extinction Rebellion’s protests ought to be celebrated. They demand an end to the press toeing the line to appease those they should be scrutinizing.

It’s ironic that only when an activist group protests the UK media’s failure to report accurately and impartially do leading politicians and public figures become bastions of press freedom. Extinction Rebellion poses no threat to democracy. Pandering to billionaires and corporate interests does.

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.

Creative Commons