Climate Change and Crime: New Pressures for Pacific Walruses and Alaska Native Artists

In warming Alaska, Pacific walruses and Inuit craftsmen find themselves facing new and intersecting threats.

“You don’t want to get it from headhunters,” Leon Kinneeveauk tells me as we maneuver around his crowded art studio in downtown Anchorage. Tools, bones, and unfinished carvings extend over every work surface, covered in a thin layer of white dust.

Kinneeveauk, an Inupiaq artist who specializes in carving walrus ivory, grew up in the remote Point Hope, a northwestern Alaskan village accessible only by plane or boat. His Anchorage gallery, Arctic Treasures, is a trove of work of master craftsmen from around the state. At the back of the shop, which he took over from its previous owner last year, is a growing studio space where he and artists work on native handicrafts, from whale baleen baskets to delicate bird figurines and walrus ivory carvings like the ones he makes himself.

Leon Kinneeveauk
Leon Kinneeveauk carves an ivory walrus tusk into an ornate piece of art. Photo: Katarzyna Nowak.

Kinneeveauk is careful about where he sources his walrus ivory. He has to be. In northwest Alaska large colonies of Pacific walrus now regularly haul themselves out onto land — a phenomenon tied to the loss of sea ice due to climate change that has led to new threats for the massive marine mammals. When these walrus are vulnerable on land, people have killed them and salvaged only the tusks.

“Headhunting,” as this is known, is a violation of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, under which Indigenous people can hunt walrus but must make use of the whole animal. In recent years four hunters from Kinneeveauk’s community were charged with shooting and headhunting eight walruses hauled out on a beach at Cape Lisburne. The men’s actions during two separate hunts caused herds to stampede, resulting in the death or injury of at least two dozen additional walrus, about half of which were calves.

Catastrophic stampedes such as these would not occur on ice floes, where animals can escape into the water if disturbed.

The men were sentenced in a case of restorative justice, under which they must perform services to benefit their community, such as hunting for the subsistence needs of elders and delivering presentations in coastal villages on hunting ethics and the legal duty to take animals in full.

Kinneeveauk takes his own “full use” responsibility to another level in his art: He uses even the fine ivory dust, created while he carves with power tools, to fill in cracks in his carvings. The piece he’s working on as we visit his studio is a lithe fisherwoman. The sound of his electric drill fills the space with a hum as he shows me his work. While he carves, he wears protective goggles and a mask. As I watch, I can sense the walrus bone dust in the air.

Leon Kinneeveauk
Leon Kinneeveauk carves an ivory walrus tusk. Photo: Katarzyna Nowak.

Alaska Native artists like Kinneeveauk, who use Pacific walrus ivory, have been plying their trade for centuries, but now they’re up against two intensifying threats: climate change and crime.

Walrus hunting, including at terrestrial haul-outs, is managed by the Eskimo Walrus Commission and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Even when walrus ivory is responsibly sourced in accordance with hunting ethics and regulations, sales of carvings are now being forestalled and overshadowed not just by recent illegal activity in Alaska but also poaching on the other side of the world.

Arctic Treasures itself was recently at the center of some of these types of crimes. In March of this year the gallery’s previous owner, Lee John Screnock, who is not Inuit, was indicted for selling walrus ivory carvings that he had carved himself and falsely marketed as “Native-carved.” Screnock further violated the Marine Mammal Protection Act by selling polar bear and walrus bones, including skulls and oosik (walrus penis bone). The case puts Kinneeveauk, who acquired the store in June 2018, under additional pressure to improve the shop’s reputation.

oosik
Carved walrus oosik in FWS warehouse. Photo: Katarzyna Nowak

Another ongoing case involves a man who outsourced walrus ivory carving all the way to Indonesia, re-imported the finished pieces back to Alaska, and sold them to tourists alighting from cruise ships in Skagway, a popular destination that was once a Gold Rush boomtown. There are other cases of art being crafted overseas, for example jewelry manufactured in factories in the Philippines, then imported and sold in the United States under the label “Native-made.”

Ironically the poaching threat to walruses may be increasing in part because other target species’ populations are under poaching pressure.

“As elephant populations continue to be decimated, walrus, narwhal or other ivory-carrying species could become the next targets for unscrupulous and large-scale commercial operations,” says Steven Skrocki, deputy criminal chief in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Alaska, which had legal authority in the Point Hope case and now in both the Arctic Treasures and Skagway cases, among others.

seized ivory
Seized elephant and walrus ivory carvings on display at the Beaver Creek border station in the Yukon, 20 miles from Alaska border. Photo: Katarzyna Nowak

This means that Kinneeveauk is also contending with wider controversies, including blanket ivory bans being enacted by some U.S. states as an outcome of elephant poaching in Africa. The bans have been proposed and decreed because of the difficulty in distinguishing ivories from elephants and similar tusk-bearing species such as walruses and even extinct mammoths.

Amid the huge, dramatic changes facing the Arctic, the reverberations of the race to save another ivory-bearing species on the other side of the world, and the crime that too often accompanies the commercialization of wildlife products, can the traditions of Inuit carvers who use Pacific walrus ivory be preserved?


Walruses are the only living member of an entire family of marine mammals distinguished by their upper canines. Their similarly semi-aquatic relatives — sea lions and fur seals — do not have “ivory,” which in walruses is really two canines long enough to be called tusks or “morse.” The tusks can grow as long as 40 inches. Because walruses use them to lift themselves out of the water onto sea ice, the animals’ scientific name Odobenus rosmarus translates into “tooth-walker.”

walrus
Walrus surface for air in Alaska’s Chukchi Sea. Photo: NOAA/OER/Hidden Ocean 2016:The Chukchi Borderlands

Pacific walrus, one of two walrus subspecies, inhabit the waters around the United States and Russia and “wander” into Canada and Japan. Unlike Atlantic walrus, which are largely sedentary in their habits, Pacific walrus are highly migratory. Pacific walrus are on the watchlists of wildlife agents and government officials in Alaska because of the high street value of their ivory tusks and the growing number of terrestrial haul-outs, where they are vulnerable to disturbance.

Walrus haul out
Large terrestrial haul-out of Pacific walruses at Cape Vankarem, Chukotka, Russia. (Photo by Vladelin Kavry)

While walrus harvest is currently considered legally sustainable, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service walrus biologist Joel Garlich-Miller says he’s still concerned about what the future holds given how rapidly sea ice is shrinking and shipping traffic is increasing. The number of walrus now — estimated at some 250,000 — is the same number taken over just a 16-year period by European whalers for oil, tusks and hides in the second half of the 19th century. It took 100 years for walrus to recover to pre-European commercial harvest levels.

Among the biggest current concerns today, says Garlich-Miller, is disturbance at coastal haul-out sites.

“There are tens of thousands of walrus hauling out at locations in Russia and the U.S.,” he says. “On land they’re very susceptible to human disturbance in the form of planes, boats and hunting.”

What makes these large haul-outs risky is that walrus have one direction to go: toward the water. If adult walruses panic and try to rush to safety, calves can get crushed and injured.

“A single stampede can cause tens or even hundreds of animals to die,” Garlich-Miller says. In some years trampling mortalities can exceed the entire legal harvest of Alaska.

This is happening more frequently, and it doesn’t just endanger the walruses. In the Russian town of Vankarem, dogs and polar bears are drawn to walrus carcasses following stampedes, raising the likelihood of negative interactions between people, their domestic animals and wild carnivores.

In an attempt to minimize these risks, Native leaders in Alaska and Chukotka are working to discourage the practice of hunting walrus at haul-outs. Another alternative they’re promoting involves hunting only with silent bows or spears instead of loud rifles to reduce the likelihood of causing the larger colony to panic.

“The future of walrus has not been written yet,” he says optimistically. “There are things we as a society can do to mitigate, including allowing animals to adapt to new habitat areas, protecting animals at haul-outs and keeping subsistence harvest levels sustainable.”

He adds, “There will always be some opportunists, but most hunters have a strong ethic.”


Could blanket ivory bans and other legislative attempts to solve these problems actually harm Native carvers?

That’s the contention of some Alaska lawmakers, who this past March introduced a federal bill seeking to block other states from banning the sale of walrus ivory, whale bone and other marine mammals carved by Alaska Native artists.

The bill, entitled the “Empowering Rural Economies through Alaska Native Sustainable Arts and Handicrafts Act,” aimed to preempt state ivory bans from including marine mammals, as well as extinct mammoth and mastodon, which are also carved by Alaska Natives. It hews closely in content to a previously proposed bill called the “Allowing Alaska Ivory Act,” a name legislators dropped in an attempt to make the bill more palatable in our ivory-averse times.

“Allowing the sale of ivory has a negative connotation,” says Kate Wolgemuth, rural advisor to Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), who sponsored the Act (it has not moved beyond the submission stage). “States have been enacting blanket ivory bans because they’re worried about African elephant ivory poaching. As a result, they don’t distinguish between different types of ivory.”

Blanket ivory bans, according to Wolgemuth, may cause residents to worry about buying, owning and bringing home legally acquired ivory from Alaska. “These laws go against the MMPA, which explicitly protects Alaska Native artists’ right to carve and sell marine mammal ivory,” she says. “These bans were passed without Alaska’s input.”

“Walrus ivory carving is about culture, not commerce,” she adds.

The sale of any ivory has been prohibited by California, Hawaii, New York, and New Jersey among other states. Wolgemuth says she now avoids traveling with walrus ivory herself, as each state’s ban differs slightly.

Meanwhile bones from extinct mammoths have also been proposed for trade bans. The issue is currently being studied by the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species, an international treaty that regulates the sale of threatened wildlife — the first extinct species being considered for a trade ban.

Some conservationists and researchers fear that African elephant ivory can be mislabeled and smuggled as mammoth, allowing illegal products to be disguised in the legal marketplace. But Wolgemuth says Sullivan’s office believes that having a substitute for elephant ivory in the form of mammoth can help rather than hurt African elephants. Mammoth, she says, should be free for everyone to use.

The importance of mammoth and mastodon carving in Alaska varies from community to community, says Vera Metcalf, director of the Eskimo Walrus Commission. “For Shishmaref, mammoth is important, but on St. Lawrence Island [where Metcalf is from], we have neither mammoth nor mastodon but could trade our walrus for it.”


At the Anchorage Museum I find the work of several Native carvers, including Kinneeveauk, for sale in the gift shop.

carving
Carving by Leon Kinneeveauk in Anchorage Museum gift shop. Photo: Katarzyna Nowak

Another artist whose work is sold there is Jerome Saclamana, an Iñupiaq carver from Nome. He makes clear that walrus tusk carving has given him a living. “I’m not getting rich from it but I’m able to practice what my ancestors did, only in a more modern way,” he says, referring to power tools.

Like Kinneeveauk, Saclamana also now lives in Anchorage as “there’s more of a market for my carvings here than in Nome.” Still, he says the price he can currently charge is 25 percent less than just a few years ago. He theorizes consumer confusion over what ivory is legal to buy has caused the market and prices to shrink.

Joining the conversation, Aaron Tolen, an education intern at the Anchorage Museum, tells me he’s “probably related to Saclamana. My mother is from Nome.”

Tolen brings up a new issue, asking Saclamana if he’s noticed any differences in walrus tusk length and density now compared with the past. Tolen’s studying the issue. He thinks cracks in walrus ivory are caused by reduced tusk density, possibly because climate change is causing shifts in walrus diet.

“Walrus are shallow-water bottom-feeders,” he explains. “Now, with ice receding, walrus must dive deeper down to get shellfish and they’re not getting as much food. Less nutrition means less dense tusks that are more fragile and crack more easily.”

But Saclamana attributes the change to young hunters not being careful enough when hunting and therefore breaking tusks, either during the hunts or when separating the teeth from the walrus skull. “Nowadays new hunters are not taught as well and I see more harvested tusks that are chipped,” he says. “I see more mishandled tusks now than before.”

When I visit Kinneeveauk’s shop and studio again, he says walrus ivory has always had some marks and cracks in it from walruses using their tusks for foraging. The tusks, he says, tell a story of a walrus’s life. “Some walrus even hunt seals.” He shows me a tusk stained with what he says is seals’ blood. “This one was a seal hunter.”

While he feels cracks in ivory are not the fault of a new generation of walrus hunters, he does show me one tusk with a bullet hole where the impact shattered the ivory like a rock cracking a windshield. “This was the hunter’s first hunt,” he says. “I still bought the tusk from him. I can fashion it into earrings.”

When I ask Garlich-Miller about cracks in ivory, he offers yet a fourth explanation. “Female ivory grows more slowly and is denser as a result,” he says. Although adult male tusks are larger, the ivory often has linear cracks. “That’s why there was historically a premium on the market for female tusks.”

What I take away from this is that even as the threats of climate change rise, we don’t have all the insights yet about how wild animals are responding. Traditional ecological knowledge keepers might agree as much as some scientists: sometimes not at all.


For the time being, Pacific walrus are not protected under the Endangered Species Act, although the Fish and Wildlife Service did find that protection was warranted in 2011. While the population appears to be large and healthy at the present time, shrinking sea ice habitat is expected to cause the population to decline over time, Garlich-Miller says.

Even without that potential protection, Garlich-Miller continues working with the Eskimo Walrus Commission to minimize disturbances at terrestrial haul-outs. For example, they work with the Federal Aviation Administration and the U.S. Coast Guard to steer air and boat traffic away from haul-outs to reduce the potential for stampedes.

seized walrus ivory
Seized walrus ivory held by Environment Canada officers. Photo: Katarzyna Nowak

Then there’s the threat from individuals, although it remains unquantified. “I don’t want to minimize the risk of poaching, as it can always spring up,” he says. “I also don’t know what’s happening in Russia.” He says some of his former colleagues who were monitoring the situation there are no longer in their positions, so information on what’s happening in Russia has grown scarce.

But poaching does seem to be occurring. Last year more than 400 walrus ivory tusks, presumably from populations in Russia, were seized in China in a shipment that also contained mammoth, narwhal and elephant ivory, antelope horn, and bear gallbladders and teeth.

Moving forward, Garlich-Miller notes that collaboration, monitoring and a commitment to following the law will help sustain both walrus and traditions. That’s where he focuses most of his efforts. “Today, I’m more of an outreach and people person,” he says. A walrus ambassador, I suggest.


If the Pacific walrus ever gains Endangered Species Act protection, exceptions will remain in place for Native subsistence hunters and artisans, just as they currently exist under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, says Andrea Medeiros, public affairs specialist with the Fish and Wildlife Service office in Alaska.

Even today most carvers already make sure to source their ivory responsibly and make a case against wanton waste. Saclamana, the carver from Nome, lists for me the many ways walrus bodies can be employed, including for food. “The stomach is used for drums, and I even use the whiskers in my carvings.” An Anchorage Museum exhibit expands on that, displaying information on how walrus intestines can be cooked or frozen to make everything from waterproof parkas to boat shells and spray skirts for kayaks.

Diversifying to other materials may also play a part in protecting both walruses and carvers. Saclamana says that as he gets older he finds himself tiring of hearing the sound of power tools while he carves. He’s applied for a grant to learn how to carve wood instead.

Kinneveuk, meanwhile, is starting a nonprofit, The Native Artist Alliance, which he says will ensure that his studio remains both safe and sober. “The space gets people off the streets,” says Kinneeveauk, who’s self-rehabilitated with the help of art. It will not, he adds, be exclusive to Alaska Native persons. “We already have two non-native artists, and as long as they don’t touch the ivory, they’re welcome here.”

Many of the experts I spoke with told me it’s important that Alaska Native artists and craftspeople not find themselves pitted against conservationists, and that there’s mutual respect for the common cause of protecting walrus and Inuit traditional food and culture into the future.

But that future for people, culture and walruses remains at risk as the climate continues to heat, a message visible in a short film called “The Walrus” that plays on a continuous loop at the Anchorage Museum.

watching walrus movie
Two women watch The Walrus in the Anchorage Museum. Photo: Katarzyna Nowak

In the film a hybrid walrus-man appears despondent — something’s lacking from his life. Land-enslaved, he repeats a dull routine while striving for self-recognition in his bathroom mirror. At last, the walrus-man steps onto a beach, looks nostalgically out at sea, and plunges in. Although he’s finally in the water, he’ll find there isn’t much ice left to tooth-walk on.

Author’s note: Since reporting for this story was conducted in Alaska, budget cuts made by the state governor resulted in the temporary closure of the Alaska State Council on the Arts, including its Silver Hand Program, which offered authentication for Native handicrafts. The Silver Hand seal was intended to show that materials were legally sourced and carved. It is unclear if this authentication program will persist.

CITES Protection for Tokay Geckos: What Does It Really Mean?

Some people object to placing limitations on trade in threatened species, but new rules will benefit both the gecko and the countries in which it lives.

One of the most heavily trafficked animal species on the planet, the tokay gecko (Gekko gecko), got an important boost last month when the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) agreed to regulate any future trade of this species.

CITES, a treaty signed by 183 member nations, aims to ensure that international trade in wild animals and plants doesn’t threaten their survival. In this case tokay geckos were included in what’s known as CITES Appendix II, which places controls on trade. The proposal to list the species came from India and the Philippines, two of the 15 countries where tokay geckos live in the wild. They were joined on the proposal by the European Union and the United States, acting mainly as importers of tokay geckos.

As we previously discussed, the Appendix II proposal stemmed from concerns that large-scale and almost completely unregulated trade in tokay geckos from South and Southeast Asia to East Asia would lead to a significant decline in wild populations. Already some countries have reported declines and localized extinctions, something this new regulation will hopefully help to stem or even reverse.

Appendix II: What Does This Mean?

Despite what’s claimed and even feared by some individuals and organizations, listing a species in Appendix II of CITES does not equate with a trade ban. Instead, species on Appendix II may be traded under a permitting system that allows for regulation and opportunities to track and analyze trends. This provides an early warning system if wild populations begin to decline further.

Appendix II is valuable because illegal trade in non-listed species is difficult, if not nearly impossible, to track. For one thing, the trade in plant and animal specimens is usually accepted at face value by consumer states, as there’s no easy mechanism to formally recognize whether a commodity was legally or illegally sourced without contacting the authorities or exporters in range states for each and every shipment. On top of that, some countries do not have legislation that allows for them to block any trade in illegally sourced species that aren’t already listed under CITES. With the CITES Appendix II permitting system such a mechanism is in place; if there’s no permit from the exporting country, the shipment should be deemed “not legal” and should not be allowed to continue. Simple.

And yet, there are still those who oppose listing species in Appendix II.

Obviously, some dealers and officials oppose a CITES-listing due to the increase in paperwork and administration. But the real concern is money. For financially motivated individuals not concerned with sustainable trade or the conservation of species, any limits are a frustration.

We’re already hearing some of these complaints from tokay gecko dealers and officials in range countries.

But there are obvious benefits, not just to wildlife but to officials and law enforcement.

Most notably, listing species in Appendix II helps source countries to enforce their own domestic legislation or ensure that traders abide by nationally set quotas.

For example, in India, tokay geckos are legally protected, and no export is allowed, but without a CITES listing it’s nearly impossible to enforce this national legislation once the animals have illegally left the country. Appendix II strengthens India’s internal laws.

Indonesia, another range country, does allow export of tokay geckos, but it has set a limit on the number of individuals that can be harvested and exported. Approved exporters are obliged to indicate on each export permit how much of their allotted quota remains. If quotas are exceeded, importing countries are beholden to inform Indonesia and assist in preventing the trade in the illegally-exported extra animals. In this case, Appendix II listing reinforces Indonesia’s existing quotas and will help to ensure that wild populations are not overexploited.

For those that want trade in tokay geckos to be sustainable — and thereby avoid the potential need for all-out trade bans — listing the species in Appendix II is key.

What Next?

The new CITES listing goes into force this December, after which all export of tokay geckos must be accompanied by a permit. Countries will report their annual quotas for the number of wild-caught specimens and all countries exporting, re-exporting and importing tokay geckos are obligated to provide annual reports to the CITES Secretariat.

As with all other CITES-listed species, these records are maintained in the CITES Trade Database, which is open for all to see and use. This important resource allows governments, conservationists and anyone else who’s interested to monitor trends and identify potential abuses. It also provides an early-warning system for population declines. The permitting system will allow countries to seize any tokay geckos in international trade that are not accompanied by a CITES Appendix II permit, in the process supporting source countries’ efforts to protect wild populations and regulate sustainable trade.

We applaud the CITES parties’ decision to include the tokay gecko in Appendix II, showing once again that the treaty deals with more than just well-known megafauna such as elephants, rhinos and tigers. In the coming years we’ll keep a close eye on the import and export of this species, and we eagerly await the first annual report to be submitted to CITES for hard data to help us with our analyses. In the long run, and possibly even sooner, we hope to see the current decline of wild tokay geckos begin to reverse itself and look forward to seeing the species’ presence in illegal trade also start to decline.

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 Words of Water: Why Environmentalists Are Losing the Water Wars

It all boils down to diluted language that minimizes the perception of how we’re devastating our rivers and other bodies of water.

In the 1870s the colonizing American government rounded up “Indians” and put them in boarding schools and forced them to learn English. The American government knew one thing: If you take away a person’s language, you take away their culture and their soul. It’s the first and most important step of colonization and a necessary type of violent oppression. If you want to subdue people and landscapes and cultures, you must first describe and define them in the words of the oppressor and colonizer and teach them to use those words.

Environmentalists are losing the “water wars” because they have had their language stolen — they are taught to use the language of their oppressor, and they often repeat that story, and thereby oppression, constantly in their communications.

My first exposure to this problem was more than a decade ago when I was in a meeting with the head of a government organization that wanted (and actually still wants) to build a dam on the Cache la Poudre River in northern Colorado. I was complaining that the river was already being drained by dams and diversions, and he replied to me and said that what was actually happening was that “senior water-rights holders had ‘swept’ the river.”

My jaw dropped.

They weren’t “farmers” or “cities,” which are actual people who are harming the river — they were “senior water-rights holders.”

river farms
Turtle river watershed. Photo: Lance Cheung/USDA

They weren’t “draining the river.” They had “swept” it, as if the complete draining and destruction of the river made it cleaner.

And finally, it wasn’t even a “river.” It was just “water.”

Over the years I collected these words, metaphors and euphemisms because they’re repeated by the water agencies and establishment — I call them “water buffaloes” — and often by the environmental groups that work hand-in-hand with them. Here are just ten examples of a whole institutionalized and legalized system of linguistic and cultural oppression describing river destruction:

    1. When farms and cities drain and destroy a river, the water buffaloes instead call it a “consumptive use.”
    2. When environmentalists try to keep water in a river, it’s said to be a “non-consumptive use” rather than protecting a natural flowing river.
    3. When one water-rights holder illegally takes another’s water, it’s said to be an “injury,” whereby the person is legally and financially injured, but not the river itself, which can be drained and destroyed.
    4. When you drain water out of a river, your “water right” is said to be in “priority,” but the river itself usually has no right or priority at all.
    5. When water is drained out of a river or trapped behind a dam, it’s called “storage” and likened to a “bank account.”
    6. When water is purposely left in a river and flows in the actual riverbed, it’s said to be “delivered to the water-rights holders downstream,” or the riverbed is described as the “conveyance mechanism.”
    7. When more water runs down the river than is minimally required by law, it’s called an “excess” or a “waste.”
    8. The water buffaloes sometimes don’t call it a river, or even “water” — they call it “supplies.”
    9. The water buffaloes also measure water in “acre-feet,” a phrase that describes draining water out of a river and placing it on land.
    10. And finally, a big one: Believe it or not, when a “water right” is drained out of a river and trapped behind a dam, it is said to be legally “perfected.”

If you are a professional environmentalist and trained in water law or hydrology, you’re taught this language in college and law school. At work, you repeat it day after day in meetings, phone calls and emails. The water buffaloes like this because you use their language, and they invite you to their meetings and give you a seat at the table. At best, the language sanitizes the destruction of living rivers and entire nonhuman life forms. At worst, the language solidifies the systemic, institutionalized oppression of living rivers and the people who protect them, thereby stealing your culture and your values.

When Aldo Leopold paddled through the 2-million-acre wetland of the Colorado River Delta in 1922, he said the river was “everywhere and nowhere” and described it as a “milk and honey wilderness” full of “hundreds of lagoons” containing “deer, quail, raccoon, bobcat, jaguar and vast flocks of waterfowl.” Now the Colorado River Delta is almost 100 percent drained, and the small effort to restore it is often described with bland scientific terminology. The tiny amount of water that the United States and Mexico are allowing to be pumped into the “restoration zones” is measured in “acre-feet.”

Language is a tool of political manipulation — when you use and repeat your opponent’s language, you solidify their status and your own oppression.

Consider this mumbo-jumbo that you hear when talking to water agencies: “When a water right is in priority, you perfect it by sweeping the river so that excess supplies are held in storage for consumptive use.”

What really happened? They dammed, drained and destroyed a river, which is a living, breathing life force — the veins of the planet — providing survival to a vast array of nonhuman creatures that have entire cultures and languages of their own.

If they steal your language, they steal your soul. Don’t let them.

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.

Naomi Klein: Gearing up for the Political Fight of Our Lives

The author and activist talks about climate hope, grief and her new book, On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal

This week millions of people from more than 150 countries are expected to take part in a global climate strike — an effort spurred by students who have been striking weekly to demand action on climate change.the ask

In the United States, activists hope meaningful policy will follow protest. Naomi Klein’s book On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal makes the case for one specific way forward — the proposed Green New Deal. It’s a plan to slash global emissions along with addressing other issues of economic, racial and gender justice.

“Young people around the world are cracking open the heart of the climate crisis, speaking of a deep longing for a future they thought they had but that is disappearing with each day that adults fail to act,” she writes in the book.

For years Klein — author of bestsellers such as The Shock Doctrine and This Changes Everything — has been sounding an alarm about the growing climate crisis, but also peeling the curtain back on the machinations of the powerful interests that are profiting from the fallout.

Her latest, a collection of essays and speeches spanning 10 years along with timely new material, provides a compelling look at how we got to where we are and where to go next. We spoke to Klein about why the Green New Deal is gaining momentum, why justice is at the core of climate action, and what’s at stake in the 2020 election.

Your book is a progression of your essays over the span of a decade. What did you notice in looking back over those years?

I found reasons for hope and there was also a lot of grief. We’ve lost a lot over a decade. This is really such a fast-moving crisis, even though it gets marketed as a slow-moving crisis.

Naomi Klein
Author Naomi Klein. (Photo by Kourosh Keshiri)

I don’t think we’re losing Arctic ice or Antarctic ice in a manner that is at all slow. I write in the book about my time at the Great Barrier Reef in the aftermath of the huge [coral reef] die-off there — it was incredibly rapid. [Today] the Amazon is in flames, as are so many tropical forests. These are the major features of our planet and they are rapidly changing.

It’s also enraging. At the presidential Democratic primary debates Joe Biden actually said that the reason [the Obama administration] didn’t take action when they were in office was because they didn’t know how bad things were. But they did know.

At the same time, I also feel a tremendous sense of excitement and hope. Here we are talking about an economy-wide transformation thanks to absolutely incredible grassroots organizing by groups like Sunrise and bold leadership from folks like [Representative] Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, the Squad and [Senator] Ed Markey.

You write a lot in the book about intersectionality — why things like universal health care and economic justice issues need to be part of action on climate change — which is also a core part of the Green New Deal. Why is that important?

I think there are common-sense reasons and there are strategic reasons.

I was in Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria and it was obvious that the huge loss of life — studies put the number at around 3,000 or 5,000 — was not as a result of those ferocious winds and waves. People did die from those, but not by the thousands. They died in the thousands because the healthcare system had been systematically neglected, partially privatized, was so brittle and neglected that it was knocked out by the storm along with the electricity system that had also been so systematically neglected and prepared for privatization. And so that was what killed people.

To me the idea that health care is somehow an add-on to what a climate policy should be seems to come from folks who haven’t spent much time in real-world places that have been devastated by climate change-charged disasters.

But then there’s also the strategic reason, which is that we need to build a vision that people will fight for, that people will see benefits from in the here and now. One of the big problems with these kind of market-based responses such as a carbon tax, cap and trade or some rollout of renewables is that for a lot of working people struggling with economic insecurity, these policies have come to be equated with their electricity bill going up at the same time they’re watching the big polluters get completely off the hook.

And that’s why in France the slogan of the Yellow Vests [grassroots movement] was, “You care about the end of the world, we care about the end of the month.” I think the beauty of the intersectional vision of the Green New Deal that includes well-paying unionized jobs and the need for treating health care as a human right and child care as a human right, is that it doesn’t make people choose between the end of the month and the end of the world.

There have been a lot of ideas over the years about how we should tackle the climate crisis. Why is the Green New Deal getting so much support now?

A lot of different reasons. Some of it has to do with brilliant organizing and courageous leadership from the people already mentioned. And just the energy and the moral clarity of this young generation of climate activists who are really clear that they are fighting for survival. They’re fighting for their futures, and we’re just plain out of time, and they’re not interested in hearing speeches about how seriously politicians take climate change if they don’t actually have a plan that’s in line with the science to cut global emissions in half in the next 11 years.

I think that’s really changed the political landscape.

I think the other thing that’s made people so open to an approach like the Green New Deal — which brings together economic, racial and gender justice with the need to lower emissions very, very quickly — is a widespread sense that the system we have is failing people on multiple fronts.

If we’re going to transform our economy as the IPCC has told us we have to do, then why wouldn’t we transform it in a way that attempts to address and redress all of these other crises at the same time? On Fire book cover

Because we can’t ask people to choose between existential crises. If your family is facing eviction, if you’re afraid your kids are going to get shot by police, these are existential crises for you and it doesn’t help to have environmentalists going, “Yeah, yeah, but we have an existential crisis that’s for the whole world.” It doesn’t matter for you. It’s all existential, right? So we need a plan that says you don’t have to choose.

This would obviously be a big economic and societal shift, and yet we have a president who can’t even stand to see light bulbs getting more efficient. It feels like we have a really long way to go in a very short amount of time. How do you reconcile that?

It feels that way because it’s true. I’m in no way sanguine about our chances. I think that our chances of pulling this off are slim. But there is a pathway. When I wrote This Changes Everything in 2014 there were no major politicians who had any chance of governing who understood the scale of change required.

And now we have candidates that are just trying to outdo each other for who is going to spend more trillions of dollars transforming the economy in the face of the climate crisis.

What’s the pathway that you see as we head into 2020?

The pathway for the United States is that you elect somebody to lead the Democratic Party and run against Donald Trump who puts a Green New Deal at the center of their platform. They win against Donald Trump with a clear democratic mandate to bring it in on day one. You try to get the Senate and hold onto the House of Representatives. Then roll momentum from the election into countering the backlash that will obviously come from the vested interests who will try to keep this from happening.

Like I said, I don’t think the chances of success are good, but to me, the stakes are so unimaginably high that if there’s any chance, then the only conversation that matters now is, how are we going to improve our chances? How are we going to build a more powerful coalition?

Right now I think it’s all about getting a candidate coming out of the primaries who understands the urgency, has a compelling, bold Green New Deal platform, and has a proven track record of taking on powerful vested interests. Because you can say you believe in this, but if you don’t have a track record of standing up to corporate power and in fact have the opposite, then you’re not a credible messenger. And there’s no reason to trust you, because this is going to be the political fight of our lives.

Grizzly Reintroduction Into the North Cascades: A Question of Political Climate

Will the Trump administration’s recent changes to the implementation of the Endangered Species Act complicate the delicate strategy of grizzly restoration in this remote Washington wilderness?

Jack Oelfke, chief of natural and cultural resources for North Cascades National Park, sits outside behind the park’s main visitor center and mulls the challenges of establishing a healthy grizzly bear population in northwest Washington.

Oelfke has been working on wilderness issues for decades, and grizzly reintroduction has been his primary focus the past five years. Issues as culturally complicated as grizzles, he says, aren’t solved by time and focus alone.

“Reintroduction might be easier with some species — none of them are easy — but with the grizzlies the potential threats are there,” Oelfke says. “But if we want to honor the ethic of the Endangered Species Act, we need to reintroduce the grizzly.”

Grizzlies were first protected by the Act in 1975 after being nearly wiped out from most of their range in the 19th century. At the time the largest — and still the best-known — grizzly population in the contiguous United States lived in Yellowstone National Park. But small populations also persisted in four other areas along the Canadian border, including the North Cascades, which in 1991 was declared a suitable space to further grow and restore the species’ population. The remote, 9,800-square-mile ecosystem, a combination of glacier-cut peaks and thick virgin forests, is located under three hours’ drive from Seattle but remains relatively undisturbed.

North Cascades
Mount Shuksan and Picture Lake at North Cascades National Park and Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. Photo: Jeff Hollett (public domain)

Reestablishing the species here hasn’t moved forward much in the past three decades. Biologists estimate that fewer than ten grizzlies roam the region, just a fraction of the 200 bears that would constitute a biologically restored, genetically healthy population.

But efforts to boost those numbers continue — albeit in a halting manner. After years of development, a plan to bring more grizzlies to the North Cascades was opened for public comment period in 2017. Under the plan reintroduction could take one of four forms: no action; ecosystem evaluation restoration (two years of capturing, transporting and releasing bears into the North Cascades complex); incremental restoration (moving more bears to the area more slowly); or expedited restoration (restoring the population every summer and fall until the goal of 200 bears is reached). The comment period closed ahead of schedule but it was recently re-opened again, with submissions due in October 2019.

Ryan Zinke grizzly
Then-Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke announces support of Grizzly Bear Restoration efforts in the North Cascades Ecosystem, March 23, 2018 (public domain)

What does the near future hold for this plan? Oelfke appears cautious when speaking about the federal government’s recent reinterpretation of the Endangered Species Act — and with good reason. Two changes to the way the Act will be implemented could cause complications for reintroduction efforts.

First, the Trump administration has redefined how the Act will respond to conditions that species may face in the “foreseeable future,” making it harder to protect them from threats related to climate change. Second, it has added a requirement for considering the economic impact of reintroducing endangered or threatened species.

Despite the potential political pitfalls, Oelfke says he’s bullish about the future for grizzlies in the Cascades because of their remarkable adaptability and diverse diet.

“If you look at the historic range of grizzly bears, it goes far south well into Mexico and well into the Great Plains,” he says. He adds that the bears’ adaptability means grizzlies in the Cascades should do fairly well under current climate change scenarios, unlike some other species in the region that depend upon specific habitat conditions — snow-dependent wolverines, for example, which need around ten feet of snow to build their dens. Climate change models vary, as does the perception of how climate change will threaten grizzlies in the region, but what remains fixed is the ecosystem requirements for grizzlies — for all species, really — to have a large and diverse genetic pool.

As far as interpreting the economic impacts of grizzlies, Oelfke says it’s more about familiar battles of the past than about the future of climate change.

“Those who have expressed concern about this reintroduction are the cattle and sheep industry, because they fear loss of livestock,” he says. “Around the ecosystems where grizzlies exist, such as Yellowstone, there is some livestock depredation. But I would argue it’s quite small.”

The sprawling orchard industry on the southeastern boundary of the ecosystem has also expressed worries about Ursus arctos horribilis roaming near their apples, peaches and cherries, but Oelfke notes that many of these sites already use electric fencing to successfully thwart the black bears that also live in the region.

Although the federal government seems intent on putting a price tag on grizzlies, the economic value of a native species might actually run somewhere between priceless and infinite due to the ecosystem services the bears would provide. For example, grizzly droppings disperse seeds as the animals roam throughout the forest, a process that also helps fertilize the ground with rich nutrients from salmon.

North Cascades
North Cascades National Park. Photo: Jeff Gunn (CC BY 2.0)

Oelfke, who worked in the backcountry of Glacier National Park for ten years, says he used to see the influence of grizzlies “all the time. They’d churn up the ground, like rototilling gardens of subalpine meadow, which has very positive effects on the ecosystem.”


The efforts in North Cascades draw on years of experience restoring grizzlies in other parts of the country such as the Cabinet-Yaak area of Montana, where Jessie Grossman says she’s seen firsthand how the Endangered Species Act has helped to protect the species.

Grizzlies were almost extinct within the Cabinet-Yaak recovery zone 30 years ago. “They were in single digits,” says Grossman, project coordinator for the Yellowstone to Yukon Initiative, an organization that seeks to establish habitat connectivity between the United States and Canada. “They could have been extinct in this part of the world without the Endangered Species Act. The way it was written has done a lot of good.” Like the North Cascades, Cabinet-Yaak is still an active grizzly recovery area, with only about 50 bears.

The Trump administration’s changes to the Endangered Species Act could put that fragile recovery and others like it at risk.

“The Act is really important to conservation successes,” she says. “It allowed not only reintroduction but recovery of a lot of species. Any erosion of that Act is an erosion of a potential to protect or recover an important species.”

Grossman says she knows not everyone shares her personal affinity for grizzlies, but she sees them as a charismatic species that’s emblematic of an overall healthy ecosystem.

“Working on grizzlies is a way to have a tangible goal towards an intact, resilient ecosystem,” she says. “Connected landscapes are more resilient to climate change, and the species that are more genetically diverse within that connected landscape are more resilient.”

No matter what happens, the North Cascades remains important to the future of the grizzly species as a whole. Yellowstone grizzlies were recently placed back under the protection of the Endangered Species Act, in no small part due to the threat that population faces from climate change. Protecting and restoring the bears in other locations will help ensure the species’ long-term survival.

Back at the North Cascades Visitor Center, I see park ranger Marissa Bluestein wrapping up a demonstration discussing how climate change has already affected the wolverine population in the park. Even if grizzlies are more adaptable than other species to climate change, the overall ecosystem is not. She crystalized the crisis in one question:

“What would you do if your home kept shrinking?”

Neonicotinoid Pesticides Have Caused A Huge Surge in the Toxicity of U.S. Agriculture

The most widely used class of insecticides is dangerous for much more than its intended target, new research finds.

Scientists are warning about a second Silent Spring after a new study found that U.S. agriculture is 48 times more toxic to insects than it was 20 years ago.

A peer-reviewed study published in the journal PLOS One found that 92 percent of that toxic load can be attributed to neonicotinoids — the most widely used class of insecticides.

Neonics, as they are commonly called, are 1,000 times more toxic to bees than DDT, the infamous pesticide exposed by Rachel Carson’s work in the 1960s, says Dr. Kendra Klein, a report co-author and senior scientist at Friends of the Earth.

A big reason that neonics are so dangerous is that they persist in the environment — sometimes lasting up to 1,000 days. They remain in the soil and can be taken up by other plants. They’re also water soluble, so they wash into rivers, streams and wetlands. Their toxicity can build up in the environment and cascade from soil to plants, insects to birds.

Neonics first hit the agriculture market in the 1990s and are mostly applied as a coating on seeds. They’re used on 140 different crops but most prevalently on corn and soybeans.

“Farmers have a great deal of trouble finding uncoated seeds because these [pesticide] companies also dominate the seed market,” says Klein.

This is not the first study to raise concern about neonics. Based on earlier warnings, the European Union banned their use in outdoor agriculture last year. Similar efforts have been initiated in the United States but haven’t gained much traction so far. One bill, the Saving America’s Pollinators Act, which would suspend the use of neonics and establish a review process for other pesticides that could harm pollinators, has yet to make it out of committee in the House of Representatives, where it was introduced.

“Pesticide companies have a great deal of power in Washington, D.C.,” says Klein.

Other recent research on the plight of insects has been grim. A study published in April in Biological Conservation warned that 40 percent of the world’s insect species are facing extinction in the next few decades.

That’s bad news not just for insects but for the rest of us, too.

“Insects are the basis of the food webs that sustain all life on Earth,” says Klein. “Without insects we would have ecosystem collapse.”

For more, check out our video:

Overshoot: Trump’s Deregulatory Zeal Goes Beyond Even Where Industry Asks Him to Go

Automakers, utilities and appliance makers actually oppose some of the planned deregulation. But antiregulation hardliners are winning out.

The Trump EPA last month proposed a new plan to remove oil and gas developers’ responsibility for detecting and fixing methane leaks in their wells, pipelines and storage operations. This proposal to axe the Obama-era methane rule is notable for two reasons. First, it is a huge step backward in the race to stabilize the climate, just at the moment scientists warn we need to move forward with unprecedented speed. Second, it’s the latest in a growing list of Trump rollbacks opposed by the very industries they’re purportedly intended to help.

The Obama EPA put the methane rule in place for good reason: Methane is a powerful driver of climate disruption. While it doesn’t linger in the atmosphere as long as carbon dioxide, for the 10 or 20 years it does stay up there it packs 80 times the heat-trapping punch. There’s increasing evidence that such methane leaks may be far greater in number and volume than previously thought. Unless stopped, they threaten to undermine global efforts to stem the climate crisis.

The world’s largest energy companies don’t seem to be particularly motivated by such concerns, so it was a surprise to some that ExxonMobil, Shell and BP publicly opposed the rollback. They do have a reason: fear that the move might undercut their sales pitch for natural gas as a cleaner source of energy than coal.

Still, one might expect even this most rabid anti-environment administration to yield to such industry titans. No such luck, and not for the first time:

  • In June a group of 17 car companies signed a letter asking Trump to temper his rollback of the biggest climate initiative of the Obama presidency — the greenhouse gas emissions standards for cars. This summer four large automakers took an even more aggressive stance, joining a pact with California to oppose the rollback. And just a few days ago, the arch-conservative U.S. Chamber of Commerce joined the chorus of voices urging Trump officials to rethink their plans.
  • Electric utilities that own coal-fired power plants have opposed steps initiated by the Trump administration this spring to roll back the Obama EPA’s limits on mercury pollution from those very same power plants.
  • The administration’s reluctance to implement the 2016 Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, which would cut the use of potent greenhouse gases known as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), has drawn fire from the air-conditioning and refrigeration industries that use the compounds. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and more than a dozen Republican senators have weighed in, urging Trump to send the Kigali Amendment to the Senate for ratification.
  • The administration’s repeated efforts to eliminate or cut funding for the Energy Star program, which sets energy-efficiency labeling standards for appliances, electronics, lighting and other products, have met with consistent opposition from trade groups representing manufacturers, retailers and utilities.
  • The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s planned vehicle-to-vehicle communications (“V2V”) rule, expected to ease smog-caused traffic congestion and prevent hundreds of thousands of crashes and 1,000-plus fatalities annually, has stalled under the Trump administration. The auto industry supports the rule, despite its $2 to $5 billion price tag, but it appears to have run afoul of Trump’s “2 for 1” executive order prohibiting the issuance of any new rule absent the elimination of two existing rules sufficient to offset the costs of the new one.

In some of these instances, industry is split, and the Trump administration is choosing the scofflaws and ideological hardliners over the mainstream companies that tend to be more concerned about their public image, which used to be the backbone of the Republican Party. The methane rollback, while opposed by Shell and other big energy companies, comes at the request of the Independent Petroleum Association of America, a trade group representing small drillers (with less than $5 million in sales) whose members are reportedly “giddy” at their unprecedented access to this administration.  Trump’s planned rollback of the clean-car standards is backed by oil-industry groups and the Koch-funded American Legislative Exchange Council. In other instances, such as the 2-for-1 order stalling progress on V2V vehicle safety standards, the ideological tail seems to be wagging the dog.

What seems lost on the deregulation hawks in the Trump administration is that the marketplace often needs regulation to spur innovation and growth. Before car companies install V2V technologies, they need government to set a standard for the whole industry so they can be assured other cars on the road will speak the same language. It’s the same for methane regulation. It’s not that companies particularly want to pollute. They’re just locked in a collective action problem: If some developers invest in plugging up their own leaks, they risk being undersold in the marketplace by free riders who don’t bother. Similarly, Energy Star labels help companies sell products, and standards that force car makers to cut emissions and refrigerant manufacturers to phase out HFCs also help U.S. companies stay ahead of the curve and remain competitive globally in the new green economy. Some of the big public-facing companies with a public image to uphold recognize this. The hardliners in the Trump administration do not.

As Adam Smith understood centuries ago, a functioning “free” marketplace needs a government to set the rules of the road and provide a level playing field. The fringe elements of the far-right wing that have gotten Trump’s ear have become so ossified in their own simplistic tropes about “freedom” and “job-killing regulations” that they’ve lost touch with common sense and with the basic tenets of the free-market economics they purport to uphold. And in the process, they’re upending crucial policies, the loss of which will cost the environment — and companies — dearly in the long run.

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.

Why Indigenous Hunting Is Essential to Forest Sustainability

Hunting has a bad reputation and is rarely considered in forest governance and conservation strategies. But what if, instead, we tried to learn from it?

Many of us think of the Amazon as an untouched wilderness, but people have been thriving in these diverse environments for millennia. Due to this long history, the knowledge that Indigenous and forest communities pass between generations about plants, animals and forest ecology is incredibly rich and detailed and easily dwarfs that of any expert.

For one thing, Indigenous people see animals and humans as integral to nature. This holistic view is often missing in contemporary, science-based forest governance and conservation strategies, which tend to focus solely on forest cover.

In my Silent Forest project I’m investigating how Indigenous communities in Colombia apply traditional ecological knowledge in wildlife management. Based on my research so far, I would like to argue that subsistence hunting, and the traditional ecological knowledge that guides and regulates it, must be recognized as a key forest-management strategy.

Obviously hunting of wild animals is unpopular among conservationists, and meaningless poaching for exotic pets and animal parts can never be justified. However, in many areas around the world, Indigenous and forest communities have hunted, and continue to hunt, for subsistence. For them hunting is not a sport or a recreational activity. It’s a food source and a way to balance animal populations. So, even though it may sound paradoxical at first, hunting can actually strengthen long-term environmental management, because it’s how Indigenous and forest communities assess forest health and meet their food-security and livelihood needs. It’s also why Indigenous and forest communities often have a vested interest in healthy forests and thriving wildlife.

hunted peccary
Hunted white-lipped peccary. Photo: Torsten Krause

At the same time, there’s an increasing risk of overhunting and commercialization, both by Indigenous and forest communities themselves and by the people who live in the region or come for business. Currently it’s relatively easy to buy wild meat in local markets, even though it’s illegal to sell meat sourced from wild animals in most Amazonian countries.

It’s likely that the scale of hunting and trade of wild meat in the Amazon is substantial. Overhunting should be a concern, not only for the sake of biodiversity conservation, but because large mammals and birds, like tapirs, deer, wooly monkeys or curassows, disperse seeds of many tropical tree species, playing critical ecological role in the forest food webs. Unfortunately, because this activity is illegal, the commercialization of wild meat goes largely unmonitored. Only a few studies have attempted to quantify its extent, though there’s still a shortage of data.

Clearly hunting is a leverage point for effective forest governance, but it does require careful balancing.

What Gets Measured Gets Done

Earlier this year I visited the Indigenous reserve of TICOYA — which stands for its three ethnicities, the Ticuna, Cocama and Yagua — in the Amazon Department of Colombia. There I spoke with Indigenous hunters from different communities living in the reserve. Many of them told me they noticed animal populations have declined. They also expressed worry that they personally engage in unlawful activities if they sell the meat, but admitted that there are few alternatives for obtaining necessary cash incomes for their families.

Loretoyacu River, Colombia, March 2019
Loretoyacu River, Colombia. Photo: Torsten Krause

This shows how unmanaged subsistence hunting, in combination with illegality of trade in wild meat, can create uncontrollable conditions, where people still hunt and sell their catch but do so in secret and without reporting quantities or which species they hunt. This complicates monitoring and evaluation, making wildlife management unruly and the official data unreliable.

It also opens up issues related to justice: Indigenous people are frequently marginalized by state authorities, and their traditional forms of management are less often applied.

Meanwhile life in the Amazon region is changing. New market dynamics, environmental laws, cultural changes and loss of traditional ecological knowledge in the countries that share the Amazon all affect wildlife.

On one hand, food preferences among Indigenous people seem to be shifting. Young people are losing interest in hunting, and many look for jobs and opportunities in the cities.

On the other hand, the region is going through rapid development and national economic policies often see forest lands and resources for value extraction, which generates conflicts with Indigenous rights. The new waves of onslaught particularly strike the eye in Brazil, but manifest in most Amazonian countries. Economic development attracts many non-Indigenous settlers who come to work in mining or agriculture and do not have sensitive ecological knowledge or care for nature but like to eat wild meat or hunt for recreational purposes.

On top of these changes and emerging threats, we should keep in mind that illegal trade in timber and fauna is very profitable. There seems to be a surge in international demand for the parts of wild animals such as jaguar teeth, bones and hides.

The Dawning of the Indigenous Regime

All these links need to be better studied and understood. However, in these conditions of rapid change and high uncertainty, we have to make the best of what we have. That includes the traditional ecological knowledge of Indigenous people and forest communities.

In fact, those communities could help monitor the wildlife and support the design of fair, equitable and effective wildlife and forest management, as well as its implementation.

That’s important because research clearly shows that Indigenous territories are crucial for forest conservation. These lands typically have much lower rates of deforestation and forest degradation than the state-administered areas. In this sense, the value of traditional ecological knowledge is indispensable, and Indigenous institutions are the cornerstone of sustainable use of forest resources.

I saw this in action in Colombia, where hunters of the Indigenous, multi-ethnic TICOYA reserve understand the might of institutionalized collective action. Four years ago some of the hunters formed an association with the local Ticuna name Airumakuchi (loosely translated into “tigers of the water”).

talking to hunters
Talking to hunters in Ticoya. Photo courtesy Torsten Krause

Airumakuchi aims to unite the hunters of the Indigenous reserve and start to discuss wildlife management in order to maintain and increase the abundance of wild animals and attract them back to the forests surrounding the communities. In the initial phase, Airumakuchi received support from a large project led by the Center for International Forestry Research. Now the association stands alone as it strives to secure sufficient support from the state authorities.

The hunters may hold the keys to sustainable wildlife management, but it won’t happen without a system of checks and balances, informed by animal population monitoring with the ability to detect violations and enforce sanctions through local institutions designed for that purpose. At the same time hunting regulations — such as the designation and rotation of hunting territories, species dependent quotas and hunting seasons — have to incorporate traditional ecological knowledge and be designed and monitored by the hunting association, with the participation of the communities in the reserve.

Going further, Amazonian governments and their regional environmental authorities should contemplate testing small-scale legal trade of wild meat hunted by licensed Indigenous hunters coming from “certified” and sustainably managed forest areas. Such pilot projects can deliver metrics for monitoring and evaluation. For example, people who live in Brazil’s Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve have the right to traditional extractive practices such as hunting, fishing and harvesting of wild plants. And this is not the only such case; so-called “extractive reserves” are common and effective in Brazil. Wildlife-management strategies in other countries could learn from these examples too.

Sustainable forest management is easier said than done. But precisely for all the same reasons, a decentralized approach with organized local action can work. Empowering and investing in local hunter groups, providing forest and Indigenous communities with legal and practical tools to manage and benefit from their forests, could shape the practice of sustainable forest resource use while protecting the wildlife and increasing governance cost-efficiency. And that’s why Indigenous hunting should be included in any forest-management strategy.

This story is produced with support from the Swedish International Agriculture Network Initiative, SIANI.

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.

How to Fight Fake Climate Science on YouTube

A new study finds that fake science videos get millions of hits on YouTube. But scientists can help fix misinformation about climate change and other scientific topics.

This story was originally published by Ensia.

You probably know you can’t believe everything you see on the Internet. But you may still be surprised to find how easily fake science makes its way through YouTube and other social media sites — and how intentionally it’s being promoted.

A new study from a researcher at Aachen University in Germany about the prevalence of inaccurate climate science and conspiracy theories on YouTube illustrates the grim reality, but also a way to fix it.

The study used 10 different search terms on YouTube, such as “climate change,” “climate science,” “geoengineering” and “climate hacking,” and analyzed the results to see which videos supported the scientific consensus around climate change and which did not.

It also used an internet tool called Tor, which anonymizes users, in order to avoid YouTube’s practice of personalizing search results based on previously watched videos, location and other demographics.

Overall, most videos in the 200-video sample disagreed with the scientific consensus around climate change, and of those, 85 percent actively spread conspiracy theories. Videos that agreed with scientific consensus received more total views than those that disagreed, but by only 2,300 views — and both categories had almost 17 million views each.

YouTube has taken some steps to counter this, outlined in an update it published on its blog in July 2018. One major change was the addition of blurbs drawn from Wikipedia and Encyclopædia Britannica next to videos on “well-established historical and scientific topics that have often been subject to misinformation,” such as the moon landing.

But the study’s author, Joachim Allgaier, explores another solution that doesn’t involve YouTube changing its guidelines or algorithms. In the study, he writes, “YouTube and other online video-sharing websites have an enormous potential as tools for science and environmental education … [T]he professional communities from these subject areas will do well to engage effectively with these communication channels.”

In other words, scientists should step up to the plate and produce more YouTube videos that fit with the facts.

Getting more scientists actively engaged in science education is no easy feat — but, at least on YouTube, it is already happening. Channels like SciShow, Physics Girl, The Brain Scoop and more provide a wide range of science content. In Allgaier’s study, four videos from “Science YouTubers,” including SciShow, appeared in the sample and had the third highest views of all videos in the sample.

Scientists don’t necessarily have to create a new YouTube channel, buy fancy video equipment and hire a team of script writers or video editors in order to have an impact. SciShow, for instance, is hosted by non-scientist YouTuber Hank Green and others, but hires scientists as consultants to develop curriculum and video ideas. Crash Course, a channel owned by the same education company as SciShow (it’s called Complexly, and it’s owned by Green and his brother), also hires chemistry and geography experts.

There’s another angle on this that Allgaier notes. When he used the search term “chemtrails,” all but one of the videos in the sample actively supported the common conspiracy theory. If someone did search for that information, there might not be any scientifically accurate videos to counter all the conspiracy content. A similar pattern appeared with the term “geoengineering,” and Allgaier writes that the scientific term has been “hijacked” by conspiracy advocates to push their own agenda.

So, there’s something to be said for using those terms to intentionally push more real science videos into the search results for common conspiracies like chemtrails, and possibly reclaim words like “geoengineering” that have been corrupted.

Fixing misinformation and fake science online is not an easy task, and it won’t happen overnight. But maybe, as Allgaier says, instead of waiting for YouTube to take action, scientists can start their own ball rolling.

September’s Best Environmental Books: The Green New Deal, Vanishing Species and Effective Activism

This month brings important new books by Naomi Klein, photographer Joel Sartore, Jonathan Safran Foer and water activist Maude Barlow.

September has arrived, summer vacation season is over and it’s time to get stuff done — not just for the month ahead but for the future of the planet.

revelator readsWith that in mind, this month sees the publication of an amazing array of books on a wide range of environmental issues, covering everything from climate change to burning rainforests to protecting our water. We’ve combed through the catalogs to pick the 13 best new eco-books coming out in September, including titles from an impressive team of experts and award-winning authors. Check out our list below, pick the ones that are best for you or your family, and read up on new ideas for fixing what we’ve broken — then get to work.

The Green New Deal:

To start off our list, this month brings not one but two books about the need for a Green New Deal.

on fireFirst up, Shock Doctrine author Naomi Klein offers us On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal. This collection of new and previously published reports examines the state of the environment around the world, ranging from the Great Barrier Reef to the Vatican. And as you’d expect from a firebrand like Klein, this impassioned, justice-oriented book presents a call for immediate transformation of the systems that have produced the climate crisis (and so many other crises along the way).

Taking a slightly different path, economic theorist Jeremy Rifkin brings us The Green New Deal, a cautionary tale that warns the world economy (if not the world itself) will fall apart in under ten years if we don’t take immediate action to mothball extractive energy technologies. Subtitled “Why the Fossil Fuel Civilization Will Collapse by 2028, and the Bold Economic Plan to Save Life on Earth,” Rifkin’s book serves as a call for world governments to decarbonize their economies, post-haste.

Wildlife and Conservation:

missing lynxThe Missing Lynx: The Past and Future of Britain’s Lost Mammals by Ross Barnett — Eurasian lynx were wiped out in Britain 1,300 years ago, but there’s now an effort to bring them back to their old stomping grounds. Could other species, even megafauna, soon follow? Barnett look at the lynx and other extinct British species to see what we’ve lost following their disappearance from the ecosystem and what we might gain from rewilding projects. Along the way, he asks if these types of projects should even be conducted at all. That’s a timely, important question in this era when we’re even talking about brining extinct species like the mammoth back to life.

gone is goneGone Is Gone: Wildlife Under Threat by Isabelle Groc — Aimed at teenage readers, this profusely illustrated and thoroughly researched book looks at endangered species around the world — and what we can do to help them. Conservation icon Jane Goodall provides the foreword. (For juvenile readers, check out a similarly themed book out this month: Survival by artist Louise McNaught and writer Anna Claybourne.)

Vanishing: The World’s Most Vulnerable Animals by Joel Sartore — Critically endangered and extinct-in-the-wild species get the spotlight in this stunning, 400-page photography book, the latest in Sartore’s “Photo Ark” project for National Geographic. This could be your last chance to see many of these species, so take some time to linger on each image and reflect on the very real faces of impending extinction.

Climate Change:

we are the weatherWe Are the Weather: Saving the Planet Begins at Breakfast by Jonathan Safran Foer — If we want to fight climate change, we (individually and collectively) need to put down the breakfast sausages and rethink many of our other agricultural products. A stylishly written and thought-provoking book from the author of Everything Is Illuminated and Eating Animals.

The Geography of Risk: Epic Storms, Rising Seas, and the Cost of America’s Coasts by Gilbert M. Gaul — Hoo boy, the coastal destructive coming our way due to climate change and sea-level rise is going to be expensive…and taxpayers will carry the costs. Gaul, a Pulitzer Prize-winner, recounts the history of coastal development (or over-development, to be precise) and lays out the case for changing the way we regulate and subsidize risky construction.

Activism and Environmental Justice:

whose water is it anywayWhose Water Is It, Anyway? Taking Water Protection Into Public Hands by Maude Barlow — One of the world’s most notable water-justice activists provides a step-by-step guide to help communities keep themselves from going dry due to the actions of irresponsible companies and governments. (Check out our interview with Barlow.)

Unearthing Justice: How to Protect Your Community From the Mining Industry by Joan Kuyek — Covering everything from how to stop a new mining project to figuring out how to clean up an abandoned mine, this important book offers activists a primer for taking on all manner of extractive industries that can harm human health and the environment.

Salmon and Acorns Feed Our People: Colonialism, Nature and Social Action by Kari Marie Norgaard — A sociological look at North American colonialism, focusing on the Karuk Tribe of northern California and their political struggles for environmental justice and food sovereignty.

And Two More for Good Measure:

Waste by Kate O’Neill — A simply titled book about a very complex issue: What do we do with all of our stuff? From food waste to plastic recycling to the remnants of our ubiquitous electronics, O’Neill examines the politics and future of what we throw away.

rainforestRainforest: Dispatches From Earth’s Most Vital Frontlines by Tony Juniper — A gorgeous, thoughtful and increasingly necessary book examining the roles that rainforests around the world play in regulating our planetary systems. Juniper, a noted environmentalist who has spent decades working on rainforest conservation, devotes a good portion of this book to the threats that human-caused fires pose to these essential ecosystems — a timely topic, to say the least.


That’s our list for this month, but don’t stop here: You can find dozens of other recent eco-books in the “Revelator Reads” archive.