Viewing entries in
The Environment
By 2023, US Fish and Wildlife and other US agencies had adopted a wildlife management framework called Resist-Accept-Direct, or RAD. The RAD framework allows natural resource managers the option to actively shape “change in ecosystem composition, structure, processes, or function toward preferred new conditions” (Schuurman et al, 2022). That option allows moving species outside their historic range, to benefit the receiving ecosystem, the migrating species, or both.
A sense of panic rarely leads to thoughtful planning. More often panic leads to bad policies, rushed implementation, poor outcomes, and political backlash. Better to tread carefully and self-correct as necessary.
So what does that mean for humans and the planet? Some predictions: unpredictable weather, extreme heatwaves, heat stressed cities, increased wildfires, severe droughts, water scarcity, increased frequency, intensity and/or amount of heavy rain and flooding, loss of species/mass extinctions, deforestation, lower crop yields, reduced food security, and widespread economic hardship. These problems will vary by region and local preparedness. Worst off will be countries that lack the resources or political will to build resilience and adapt to the coming onslaught of troubles…What to do?
On the left we have intensive farming, clearly not the way to go. On the right, “agroecological agriculture”, clearly on the side of virtue and biodiversity. Now here’s another example of intensive agriculture…
“Intensive” is rarely used in a positive context for farming. People tend to associate it with low animal welfare, pollution and faceless corporations…But there are lots of different ways to farm intensively.” - - Emma Garnett, Five misused food and farming terms, from natural to intensive – and what they really mean, 2023
Ok, so global CO2 emissions continue to rise, except for a pandemic-induced dip in 2020. But look closely at the above chart and you’ll see definite signs of progress, especially since 2010. For one, CO2 emissions are increasing more slowly than global population and GDP per capita. Two, energy intensity - a measure of energy inefficiency - has been declining steadily for over 30 years. And, three, there’s an accelerating decline in “carbon intensity”, which means…
“Stop all grants to advocacy groups?” I’m assuming “advocacy groups” refers to environmental groups, many of which employ scientists and policy wonks with expertise directly relevant to EPA concerns…Why in the world should the EPA simply stop using these groups? It’s possible to have strong convictions about the environment (whether nature-or human-centered, whether left or right) and maintain a high level of professional integrity. Environmental activists can still provide high quality information and advice. The EPA doesn’t have to embrace their ideological convictions to benefit from their input.
There was a time when Republicans embraced the cause of environmental protection. Think Progress noted that “some of the greatest conservationists ever to take the oath of office were Republicans.” Both Greenpeace and the Union of Concerned Scientists rated Richard Nixon one of the greenest president ever. And we're not talking ancient history here: both Presidents Bush supported cap and trade policies to reduce pollution…So what happened?
The American public has largely come around to Carter’s vision of protecting huge swaths of wilderness in the US. For example, by 2017, 70% of American voters opposed drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. This included 84% of Democrats, 64% of Independents, and 52% of Republicans. (Leiserowitz et al, 2017). However, Trump was not among those Republicans…on his last day of office, his administration “issued drilling leases on more than 400,000 acres (160,000 hectares) of Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge” (Reuters, January 19, 2021)
Excerpt from Plan for Trump Administration: “The next Administration should champion the elimination of the Conservation Reserve Program…The USDA should work with Congress to eliminate this overbroad program.”
Comment: Note that the Conservation Reserve program, established during the Reagan administration, already targets highly erodible land and areas with “significant adverse water quality, wildlife habitat, or other natural resource impacts related to activities of agricultural production”. Those are specific and concrete environmental harms – not overly broad at all.
From Chapter 10 of Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise , a project led by the Heritage Foundation that outlines policy goals for a second Trump term: “For a conservative USDA to become a reality, and for it to stay on course with the mission as outlined, the White House must strongly support these reforms and install strong USDA leaders… There would be strong opposition from environmental groups and others who want the federal government to transform American agriculture to meet their ideological objectives.”
Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise is a project led by the Heritage Foundation that outlines policy goals for a second Trump term. William Perry Pendley is the author of Chapter 16: Department of the Interior. Pendley was appointed to deputy director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in 2019 and later served in an unofficial capacity as acting director of the BLM for the remainder of the Trump administration. My intention for this series of posts is purely informational, so for now I’m keeping my opinions to myself.
Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise is a project led by the Heritage Foundation that outlines policy goals for a second Trump term. Mandy Gunasekara is the author of Chapter 13: The Environmental Protection Agency. Gunasekara was Chief of Staff to EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler from March 2020 – January 2021. Here are excerpts from Chapter 13. Note that my intention in this series of posts in purely informational. For now, I’ll be keeping my opinions to myself.
The following are excerpts from articles written during or shortly after the Trump administration. List of articles:
The Trump administration’s major environmental deregulations.
The Trump Administration Rolled Back More Than 100 Environmental Rules. Here’s the Full List.
Trump Cuts EPA Budget Again.
Latest Trump proposal on endangered species could limit future habitat, critics say
The environmental legacy of President Trump.
I got to musing about the OECD out of frustration, after spending hours looking for a comprehensive analysis comparing environmental policies across the US states. I was especially curious whether the rather cold-hearted Republican rhetoric about non-human species was matched by cold-hearted state policies. That turned out to be too big a project, so I settled for info on state environmental budgets (available on Balletopedia).
But it’s not going to happen without the cooperation of farmers. And that’s not an easy task, given that farming is a low margin, high-risk affair. Now consider that sustainable and intensive farming practices often require high initial investment with uncertain or delayed payoff. Most farmers don’t have the luxury of waiting years for a return on investment - they can hardly think past this year’s harvest. So how can governments make it easier for farmers to adopt practices and technologies that protect the biosphere? Here are some ideas…
Unfortunately, farmers often resist new ways of doing things, especially poor farmers in developing countries. Who could blame them? Farming is full of risk and uncertainty, between the weather, pests, volatile markets, bad policies, lack of storage facilities, and inadequate infrastructure. Sustainable farming requires an investment of time, labor and capital, and the return on this investment may take years. Small farmers in particular may not have the luxury to think past the current harvest.
At the present time, almost 33% of the earth’s total land area is used for agriculture. Let’s reduce that by a fifth, from roughly 49 million to 38 million square kilometers: close to the amount of agricultural land in 1950. Sounds crazy, but it’s doable, considering that agricultural productivity has already improved to the point that to produce the same amount of crops as in 1961, we need only 30% of the farmland (Our World in Data).
Granted, the Living Planet Index doesn’t cover most species but it’s a pretty good proxy for the health of the land-based biosphere. And from this chart, it’s clear that the relation between regional population growth and biodiversity is complicated.
A recent study identified 101,583 square kilometers (km2) of mining operations across the globe, based on the latest satellite imagery (Maus, Giljum, da Silva et al, 2022). This figure includes open cuts, tailings dams, waste rock dumps, water ponds, processing plants, and other ground features related to the mining activities. To put that number in perspective, agricultural land covers over 47 million km2 worldwide. However, the amount of land devoted to mining increases every year - thanks in large part to the growing market for renewal energy and electric vehicles.