Climate Talks and Forests

One of the encouraging elements of the COP talks has been the abundantly clear trend that governments and the private sector are, at least publically, in favor of halting forest loss by 2030. This is essential because trees and forests can capture excess CO2 in the atmosphere. In many ways, ACC has been made worse by deforestation and the removal of these essential carbon sinks. Ending forest loss will require several industries to cooperate. Not only must palm oil or paper companies re-think their operations, agricultural practices in especially the beef industry have to change. This is a huge problem in South America, where forests are cleared en masse to provide grazing land to the detriment of biodiversity. Vague promises of “investing in sustainable products” is not enough.

There is not a universal response by all countries. As we read about previously, some countries like those in SE Asia have adopted a REDD+ strategy to promote sustainable forest management. Particular bright spots were in Africa and Latin America, where some states have committed to preservation of twenty million hectares by 2020. Nearly 20 more countries have committed to invest more in rural development, as most deforestation occurs in rural areas where economic opportunity is limited. Another positive development is the Landscape Restoration project in collaboration with the Bonn Challenge are setting aside five million hectares of forest and are working to preserve another sixty million.

These developments are profoundly positive, and would not have been achieved without passionate, committed activists. However, forests are relatively low-hanging fruit politically and (most) everyone supports forests. The biggest challenge is keeping fossil fuels in the ground, something industry largely opposes.

ACC and its Impacts on Grizzlies in Yellowstone

The US Fish and Wildlife Service is likely to remove the Yellowstone grizzly bear (ursus arctos) population from the endangered species list, which gives federal management and protection through the Endangered Species Act. This action would return the grizzlies to state management, even in light of the fact these agencies have already indicated that they would immediately start sport hunting seasons on the bears, despite very limited evidence of increased population.

The scientific evidence used to justify the removal of the Yellowstone grizzly from ESA protection is based on range expansion, not verifiable increases in population. Environmentalists and wildlife advocates argue that range expansion is not the same as growing population and indicates that bears are using different habitats at lower elevations. This is because the whitebark pine nut, an important food for grizzlies in vulnerable times of late autumn and early spring, has been in decimated by climate change. The temporal range of the parasitic mountain pine beetle has allowed them to feast on the trees later into the fall and earlier every spring, as a result this nutritious, fat-laden resource is less available, causing grizzlies to move down the mountainside in search of increased sustenance. In short, range expansion is a consequence of climate change, not increased grizzly numbers.

In addition, the Yellowstone grizzly population is suffering from a lack of genetic diversity. Large mammals and especially carnivores need to disperse over long ranges to maintain genetic viability. As the Yellowstone grizzly is cut off from other populations to the north and west, there is a dangerous lack of genetic diversity in the Yellowstone grizzly population, another argument to keep the bears protected.

Furthermore, the USFWS is using the ESA distinct population segment language against the original intent of the ESA. The distinct population segment provision was added to the act so that population segments of non-threatened species could get protection where they needed it, but the agency is using this language in the opposite way: to divide up segments that are already vulnerable to justify removing them from the endangered species list.

Costello, C. M. et al. 2014. “Influence of Whitebark Pine Decline on Fall Habitat Use and Movements of Grizzly Bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem”. Ecology and Evolution 4: 2004-2018.

Craig, C.R. and Waits, L.P. 2003. “The History of Effective Population Size and Genetic Diversity in Yellowstone Grizzly: Implications for Conservation”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Scientists 100 (7): 4338.

Mattson, D.J. and Merrill T. 2002. “Extirpations of Grizzly Bears in the Contiguous United States, 1850-200”. Conservation Biology 16 (4): 1123-1136.

Merrill, T and Mattson D.J. 2003. “The Extent and Location of Habitat Biophysically Suitable for Grizzly Bears in the Yellowstone Region”. Ursus 14:  171-187

Indigenous Peoples at COP21

The first climate refugees in the lower 48 will be indigenous peoples from Washington state. The Quinault Indian Nation of the Olympic Peninsula has already begun the process of relocating further inland as the Pacific Ocean threatens to wash away their ancestral home. This is tragic. Not only were these  native peoples the victims of genocide, epidemic, and discrimination and dispossessed of their land and culture, now they must surrender what little land they have left due to ACC and the burning of fossil fuels, a process by which they benefited very little.

Furthermore, the glacier that feeds the Quinault River (which the QIN has relied on for thousands of years as a fishing people, known for centuries for high quality salmon) has melted completely. The glacier was very important for the river system's ecology by providing a steady stream of cold water, which is now gone. You'd think Big Oil would be satisfied with the damage they've done thus far, but they're trying to further intrude on the Quinault by sending for oil trains through their land.

Faced by these and other injustices, native nations have adopted advocacy and litigation practices of the dominant Euroamerican society. This includes advocacy and protest at international meetings on climate change, such as COP 21. The QIN as a sovereign nation is considering formally adopting the Kyoto Protocol, despite the United States' refusal to adopt it.

Ahearn, Ashley (2015). Facing rising waters a native tribe takes its plea to Paris climate talks. http://www.npr.org/2015/12/01/455745765/facing-rising-waters-a-native-tribe-takes-its-plea-to-paris-climate-talks

More on Wildlife and ACC: Bees

It is now relatively common knowledge that pollinators such as bees have been in severe decline in recent years. This is a troubling prospect, given the fact that 75% of all crops in the United States are dependent on insect pollination. The decline of pollinators is not well understood and the only consistently studied bee species is the European Honey Bee (apis mellifera) with wild species largely ignored in the scholarly literature. Studying these insects will be more difficult, because wild hives have been largely wiped out due to a combination of factors: changing land use which reduces habitat and nectar-bearing plants which bees use for food, neonicotinoid pesticides, climate change, as well as diseases and parasites that are made more deadly by the preceding stressor factors.

The most robust evidence for pollinator declines as a result of anthropogenic climate change are in butterflies. Essentially, climate change is throwing off the reproductive cycle of butterflies when winter comes too early or spring too late. The increasing rate of extreme weather events can also have a huge impact on butterfly populations, especially during vulnerable times of the year.

Pesticide companies are applying tobacco and fossil fuel industry tactics to protect profits by attempting to take attention away from the causal function of neonicotinoid seed treatments and pesticides. These companies such as Bayer and Syngenta claim that “parasites and diseases” are the main factor in pollinator decline without mentioning that pesticide makes bees more vulnerable to mites and diseases. Pesticide manufacturers also distract from the situation by blaming farmers for improper use of pesticide (maybe if your product can be so easily misused to the detriment of the environment, it’s not a good product) and funding research institutes that downplay the role of pesticides in pollinator decline. As we can see, pesticide giants are using Big Tobacco’s classic “doubt is our product” playbook to sew public controversy and discord around the alarming decline of bees.

Potts, Simon et al (2010). Global pollinator declines: trends, impacts and drivers. Trends in Ecology and Evolution Vol. 25 No. 6 1-9 CEL Press. http://www.ufz.eu/export/data/1/22686_Potts_et_al_2010.pdf

Simon, Michele (2015). Follow the honey: seven ways pesticide companies are spinning the bee crisis. Friends of the Earth. http://libcloud.s3.amazonaws.com/93/f0/f/4656/FollowTheHoneyReport.pdf