China Bans Imported Recyclables, Disrupting Global Market

Swamp Stomp

Volume 18, Issue 6

On January 1st, the Chinese government instituted a ban on imported recycled plastic and paper materials, throwing the global recycling market into turmoil.Since the 1990’s, China has been the number one consumer of raw recycled materials, receiving a full half of the world’s waste plastic, metal and paper as cheap fodder for its rapid urban-industrial expansion. In 2016, China purchased 7.3 million tons of “solid waste” worth about $18 billion, leaving a gaping hole in global demand after the ban that experts fear will not easily be filled.

The ban prohibits the import of 24 different types of commonly recycled waste products, including low-grade polyethylene terephthalate found in plastic bottles and unsorted paper. It also requires that all non-banned imported recyclables contain no more than 0.5% contamination, a threshold stricter than any European or American standard on recyclables.

“Large amounts of dirty wastes or even hazardous wastes are mixed in the solid waste that can be used as raw materials,” Beijing wrote to the World Trade Organization explaining the logic behind the new ban. “This polluted China’s environment seriously.”

While Chinese officials were initially willing to ignore the environmental costs of importing contaminated scrap materials, such as soil and water pollution, the country’s explosive economic growth affords it the option of sourcing newer, cleaner plastics for its domestic needs over recycled ones.

“What’s happened is that the final link in the supply chain has turned around and said: ‘No, we’re not going to take this poor quality stuff anymore. Keep it for yourself,’” said Simon Ellin, chief executive of the British Recycling Association. “The rest of the world is thinking, ‘What can we do?’ It’s hard times.”

This decision is having profound impacts on the capacity of Western nations to handle their recycling, most of whom sent their waste to China and thus do not have the infrastructure to process recyclables themselves.

Some countries, such as the United Kingdom, are resorting to either incinerating or burying their plastics in landfills as a short-term solution to the crisis, though both options are environmentally damaging. Other countries, such as the United States, are attempting to find markets in countries like Myanmar, India, and Vietnam for their recycling, though switching supply chains so abruptly is a challenge.

“There may be alternative markets but they’re not ready today,” said Emmanuel Katrakis of the Brussels based European Recycling Industries Confederation. In the meantime, the United States, which annually sends over 1.42 million tons of scrap plastic and 13.2 million tons of scrap paper to China, will be forced to either spend taxpayer money on upgrading recycling processing facilities domestically or, like the UK, divert the excess to landfills according to Adam Minter, author of “Junkyard Planet: Travels in the Billion-Dollar Trash Trade.” “Without China, there will be less recycling in the United States, and it will cost more,” the author said.

The United States initially relied upon China to recycle its plastic waste due to market incentives; it was simply cheaper to send recyclables overseas than it was to expand recycling capacities at home. With the shifting of incentives caused by China’s tightening regulations over recent years culminating in the most recent ban, it is costing the U.S. $2,100 per shipping container to return recyclables by ship from Chinese ports back to California.

“The public doesn’t realize this, but recycling is made possible by technology and markets – they think its just a matter of technology,” an expert on China’s waste management reported to Quartz. “And we don’t have strong enough markets in the U.S.”

While this market change will almost certainly harm the U.S.’s environment in the short term as recycling friendly states like Oregon and Washington divert their recycling to landfills, in the long term it could be beneficial as American states become incentivized to build their own recycling facilities.

Sources

  1. De Freytas-Tamura, Kimiko. “Plastics Pile Up as China Refuses to Take the West’s Recycling.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 11 January 2018. Web. 16 January 2018.
  2. Guilford, Gwynn. “China doesn’t want your trash anymore – and that could spell big trouble for American cities.” Quartz. Quartz Media LLC, 8 May 2013. Web. 27 January 2018.
  3. Guilford, Gwynn. “US states banned from exporting their trash to China are drowning in plastic.” Quartz. Quartz Media LLC, 21 August 2013. Web. 27 January 2018.
  4. Ives, Mike. “China Limits Waste. ‘Cardboard Grannies’ and Texas Recyclers Scramble.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 25 November 2017. Web. 16 January 2018.
  5. Kaskey, Jack and Ann Koh. “China’s Blow to Recycling Boosts U.S.’s $185 Billion Plastic Bet.” Bloomberg. Climate Changed, 6 December 2017. Web. 16 January 2018.
  6. Staub, Colin. “Exporter response to China: ‘We are changing our whole strategy.'” Plastics Recycling Update. A Resource Recycling, Inc. Publication, 4 January 2018. Web. 16 January 2018.

US Supreme Court WOTUS Ruling

Swamp Stomp

Volume 18, Issue 5

On Monday, January 22, 2018, the US Supreme Court in a unanimous decision ruled that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency cannot shelter its “waters of the United States” rule from judicial review by limiting where victims can sue. This decision is in response to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals nationwide stay of the Clean Water Rule in October 2015. Oddly enough it is considered a victory for both the Plaintiff (National Association of Manufacturers) and a repudiation of the Trump Administration plan to repeal the Rule. The other odd thing about this ruling is that it exclusively directs its admonition to the US Environmental Protection Agency when the defendant was the US Department of Defense.

In case you have not been following this issue, what is at stake is what waterbodies are regulated by the US Government under the Clean Water Act.

This ruling is important because it does two important things. First, by having the challenges to the rule reviewed at the District Court level it expands the timeframe in which plaintiffs can bring challenges to six years. If the decision were to have left it at the Appeals Court as EPA had argued, those challenges would be limited to 120 days. In essence, if someone is aggrieved by the issuance of the Rule they now have six years to file a lawsuit. Not only that, it can be filed at the lower District Court level. There are 94 Districts Courts in the US and only 11 Circuit Courts of Appeals. The EPA had argued that the Circuit Court venue was more efficient, but the Supreme Court did not feel that “Congress did not pursue that end at all costs” in its drafting of the Clean Water Act.

The second issue that comes up as a result of the case relates to the Nationwide Stay of the implementation of the Clean Water Rule. That Stay came from the Sixth Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court ruled that that Court did not have jurisdiction. Therefore, the Stay will be lifted, thus implementing the Clean Water Rule. This is seen by many media sources as a setback to the Trump Administration’s attempt to repeal the rule. However, if it had gone the other way it would be up to the Sixth Circuit to lift the Stay anyway and make a decision. As it is not their jurisdiction, the decision goes back to the District Courts.

By the way, the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota also has a 13 state stay on the Clean Water Rule. This was in effect the day before the Rule went into effect on August 28, 2015. When the Sixth Circuit Court Stay is lifted it will only pertain to 37 states. It is not known what the ND Court will do.

In November 2017, the Trump Administration put forth a 2-year delay proposal on the implementation of the Clean Water Rule as a new regulation. This is yet another draft regulation that we may or may not see. However, if it is not implemented the 2015 Clean Water Rule will become effective the day the Sixth Circuit Court removes the Stay.

Looking forward, the Trump Administration has been meeting with stakeholder groups to formulate a new Waters of the US definition. In light of last Monday’s Supreme Court decision, I think we can expect to see this regulation fairly soon.

2018: Year of the Bird

Swamp Stomp

Volume 18, Issue 4

Look outside right now. More than likely, some sort of bird crossed your line of sight. Maybe it was a cardinal or a robin scouring the earth for something to eat. Maybe it was a vulture souring through the sky. Or maybe you did not see the bird, but you could hear it chattering away in its own foreign language. Regardless, birds are everywhere, so everyone can appreciate a piece of legislation passed now 100 years ago that allowed for the conservation of birds to be better recognized: the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

In 1916, the United States and Canada battled the dwindling numbers of waterfowl and game species by signing the Migratory Bird Treaty. By establishing hunting seasons for game birds and eliminating hunting of insectivorous birds, both countries officially recognized the importance of these creatures who were being adversely affected by unregulated hunting. After the loss of the Labrador duck (Camptorhynchus labradorius), Carolina parakeet (Conuropsis carolinensis), and passenger pigeon (Ectopistes migratorius), the need for these actions was more than relevant. Moreover, it seemed many other species would soon be following in the footsteps of these once common species. Flash forward two years, and this treaty became law. Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, migratory birds no longer could be harmed, killed, or sold, and this included their nests and eggs. Additionally, the first federal hunting seasons were established, as well as federal authority to manage migratory birds.

Now, this new act was met with opposition. In those days, scientists studied birds by shooting them and then studying them without thinking how this might upset population or ecosystem dynamics. How would scientists study birds if they could not kill them first? Additionally, hunting was a popular sport across America (as it still is today), and designating times of the year when people were and were not allowed to hunt certain species did not only seem absurd, but it also seemed to be just another example of government intrusion on Americans’ lives.

But the Migratory Bird Treaty Act was a necessary act to preserve the birds of America, and although passed now 100 years ago, the Act is far from archaic. Today, the Act continues to positively influence bird populations. For example, the Act has helped preserve endangered puffins by designating a habitat for them south of Cape Cod as Maine’s puffins face habitat destruction. Additionally, 1.8 million acres of Californian desert was set aside under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to preserve over 250 species of birds, including the Elf Owl and Least Bell’s Vireo.

But what is the point? Why is it so important for Americans to celebrate such an act? Further, why are birds so important? Why should we go the extra mile to protect the cardinal or the hawk outside your window right now?

Most simply, birds are a crucial part of our ecosystems, of our food webs. As birds are eliminated from the food web, any insects or other small animals that they eat will increase dramatically in biomass. Additionally, anything that eats a bird will be wiped out. Without birds, our ecosystem will have no stability, as they form all parts of food webs, from higher level consumers like hawks and owls to decomposers like vultures.

Perhaps an even more tragic result of losing birds would be the loss of such beautiful details in our world. A sky without a bird is like a voice without words. Birds are inimitable creatures from their specialized beaks that Darwin found so fascinating to their vast array of plumage colors.

Many institutions, such as the Cornell Lab of Ornithology and the National Audubon Society, are deeming 2018 the “Year of the Bird,” but perhaps the true year of the bird was 100 years ago when lawmakers decided birds truly are worth protecting.

 

Sources:

Franzen, Jonathan. “Why Birds Matter and are Worth Protecting.” National Geographic. National Geographic, January 2018. Web. 9 January 2018.

Imbler, Sabrina. “A Hundred Year Legacy: The Modern Role of the Migratory Bird Treaty.” Audubon. Audubon, 16 August 2016. Web. 9 January 2018.

Mehlman, David. “Safe Flight: 100 Years of Protecting Birds.” Nature Conservancy. Nature Conservancy, December 2016. Web. 9 January 2018.

Ronis, Emily. “Migratory Bird Treaty Turns 100 Today.” Wildlife Society. Wildlife Society, 16 August 2016. Web. 9 January 2018.

China Launches World’s Largest Carbon Market

Swamp Stomp

Volume 18, Issue 3

Premier Xi Jinping of China announced on December 19th that his country was opening the largest carbon trading market in the world, fulfilling China’s pledge to do just that in two years’ time at the 2015 Paris climate summit. This comes after US president Donald Trump rescinded the United States’ commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under the Paris accords earlier this year, leaving a vacuum in global climate change leadership that many expect China to fill. “The launching of China’s national emissions trading system is a significant step in a long march toward a clean energy economy,” president of Energy Foundation China, Zou Ji, told HuffPost. “By launching, China sends a strong political signal internationally that China is keeping its global commitments, and is committed to the Paris Agreement.” China’s carbon trading market would function as a “cap and trade” system, wherein the central government puts a price on carbon by instituting a “cap” on the total amount of greenhouse gases a given industry is allowed to produce within a given time frame. Companies that produce less carbon dioxide than the cap allows for can then sell “carbon credits” to companies that exceeded the emissions cap, incentivizing companies to produce less greenhouse gases. As caps are reduced each year, so too are the country’s total emissions over the course of several years. Although the scheme only covers power plants producing more than 26,000 tons of carbon per year, which collectively produce 33% of the country’s carbon dioxide emissions, the government plans to extend the program to other industries in the future if it proves successful, such as the petrochemical, aviation, and steel industries. Due to the sheer size of China’s power sector, however, the 3.3 billion tons of carbon that are expected to be traded annually on the new market dwarfs the emissions covered by the world’s next biggest carbon market, that of the European Union, which covers only 2 billion tons of carbon annually. The high emissions are due in part to China’s massive population, which at 1.3 billion people makes it the world’s most populous country, as well as the world’s number one emitter of greenhouse gases. Yet China’s per capita emissions still lag behind that of the United States, which are more than double that of China. Ambitious as China’s cap and trade scheme is, official trading will probably not begin until 2019, according to Energy Foundation China, as the Chinese government has yet to fully plan out the regulations under which the market would operate. Of particular concern is determining how to get the price of carbon high enough to be effective at actually limiting emissions, an objective the European Union market struggled with in the wake of the 2008 financial crises when the price for carbon credits dipped from 25 Euros per ton to 5 Euros per ton, eventually stabilizing at around 7 Euros per ton. According to economists, every ton of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere today will do $125 worth of damage to society at a global scale in the future, a number commonly referred to as the social cost of carbon. In order for the scheme to actually reduce emissions and have a mitigating effect on climate change, the price of carbon needs to be as close to this number as possible. If all goes well, the program could help China achieve its goal of reaching peak carbon dioxide production by 2030.

Sources:

  1. Bradsher, Keith and Lisa Friedman. “China Unveils an Ambitious Plan to Curb Climate Change Emissions.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 19 December 2017. Web. 23 December 2017.
  2. Mosbergen, Dominique. “China Unveils World’s Largest Carbon Market.” HuffPost. Huffington Post, 19 December 2017. Web. 23 December 2017.
  3. Rathi, Akshat and Echo Huang. “The complete guide to the world’s largest carbon market that just launched in China.” Quartz. Quartz Media LLC, 18 December 2017. Web. 22 December 2017.

One of the Worst Fires in State History Ravages Southern California

Swamp Stomp

Volume 18, Issue 2

Over 230,000 square acres and upwards of 1,000 structures in urban southern California have been burned in what is now recognized as one of the worst wildfires in California state history. At least 200,000 residents from the towns of Ventura, Ojai, and Montecito, all to the northwest of Los Angeles, have been evacuated as the flames continue to be driven west by the desiccating Santa Ana winds, annual gusts that blow from the southwest deserts over the Santa Ana mountain range and into coastal California in the winter. “It’s not like someone-pointing-a-gun-at-you scared,” said Montecito resident Charles McCaleb referencing the approaching wildfire. “Its more of a controlled fright where you know what’s happening.”

Numerous factors are contributing to these intense wildfires, not least of which includes the fact that this summer and fall have been both the hottest and driest on record for California. “The [relative] humidities right now along the coast are much drier than what you’d normally see in the interior desert in the summertime,” said Daniel Swain, a UCLA climate scientist. “Once you get down to 1% or 2%, you’re down almost as low as is physically possible.” After a historically wet winter last year that allowed more grass and underbrush to grow throughout the state than normal, the extreme heat and dryness of summer and fall killed off the majority of this vegetation, building up an excess of natural dry tinder that the current wildfire has been able to continuously feed off of. Even though California’s wet season was supposed to begin in October, precipitation has been below the historical average, further exacerbating the wildfires. “Normally if we had a little bit of rain, there’s some moisture in the soil to recover,” Swain said. “But there is no rain in sight, about as far as I can possibly say about the weather.”

While it is too early to determine, human-induced climate change is thought to be a culprit in contributing to California’s extreme weather conditions, with studies showing that climate change contributed strongly to the state’s drought in 2012. In accordance with climate change models, annual variations of precipitation and temperature, like the kind California has seen in the past decade, are expected to increase, exaggerating the differences between wet and dry years and increasing the risk of wildfires.“ This is looking like the type of year that might occur more often in the future,” said A. Parker Williams, a climate scientist at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York, who led one of the studies investigating climate change’s impact on California’s drought.

Some meteorologists argue that climate change may not be to blame, citing a ridge of air over the Pacific Northwest influenced by the naturally occurring La Niña cycle as the reason for southern California’s abnormal weather. Yet according to Dr. Williams, due to the warming effect of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, “whatever happens, it’s all superimposed on a warmer world.”

Sources:

  1. Fountain, Henry. “In a Warming California, a Future of More Fire.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 7 December 2017. Web. 10 December 2017.
  2. Lai, K.K Rebecca, Derek Watkins and Tim Wallace. “Where the Fires are Spreading in Southern California,” The New York Times. The New York Times, 8 December 2017. Web. 10 December 2017.
  3. Serna, Joseph. “For some, Thomas fire triggers ‘controlled fright.'” The Los Angeles Times. The Los Angeles Times, 11 December 2017. Web. 11 December 2017.
  4. Serna, Joseph. “Why is Southern California burning in December? A climate scientist’s answer.” The Los Angeles Times. The Los Angeles Times, 7 December 2017. Web. 11 December 2017.

Duck Hunting Decreasing Across U.S.

Swamp Stomp

Volume 17, Issue 52

Delta Waterfowl has conducted a study that reports that the number of duck hunters on the North American continent is steadily decreasing.  This indicates that the future of conservation projects and, ultimately, the numbers of waterfowl that continent can support are going to fail.

The report was published in the spring issue of Delta’s quarterly magazine.  The story was titled, ‘Looming Crisis: Falling waterfowl hunter numbers threaten the future of hunting and conservation.’ According to Delta’s research, only 998,600 hunters pursued ducks in the United States in 2015. In comparison, 2 million hunters did so in 1970.

The decline in the number of duck hunters started in the mid-1990s. The number of duck hunters has declined almost every year since 1997 when the number of hunters was 1.41 million.

While this may seem like a win for some people, the decrease in duck hunters does cause some issues to arise.  While the decrease in hunting might not cause an issue on its own, but couple that with a record boom in the duck populations and problems occur. While hunter numbers were similar in 2015 to what they were in 1990, in 1990 one of the lowest duck populations since records have been kept occurred. It has been estimated by biologists that fewer than 30 million ducks inhabited the North American continent in 1990. That number has increased to nearly 50 million ducks in 2015.

John Devney, vice president of U.S. policy for Delta Waterfowl believes that one of the causes of the decrease in numbers is because adult hunters do not have access to productive hunting grounds, so they do not take their kid’s hunting.  Since adults are not introducing children to hunting, it leads to problems recruiting hunters later on.

“If we want waterfowl hunter numbers to grow or remain stable, we need recruitment to keep pace with the losses,” he said. “To recruit new hunters, we need to foster a social structure and peer support that allows a kid to stay in the game.

“We tell folks to support conservation — to replace the ducks they shoot every year. We should also be telling them that you must replace yourself as a duck hunter. That’s as big a part of the job as buying a federal duck stamp.”

Devney is mainly concerned that the hunter numbers are declining despite the record duck numbers. Starting in the mid-1990s, hunters have enjoyed liberal season lengths and bag limits because population numbers have been so high. An entire generation of hunters has no idea what it’s like to hunt when regulations are much more restricted.

“And we’re still losing hunters,” Devney said. “What happens when the prairies dry out and we have shorter duck seasons? It scares me to death. Mallards are doing well, but duck hunters are doing terribly.”

What do you think should be done about the increasing duck population?  What is your biggest concern regarding the decrease in the number of duck hunters?

Source: Masson, Todd. “Duck Hunter Numbers Declining Significantly in Louisiana, Nationally.” NOLA.com. The Times-Picayune, 22 Mar. 2017. Web. 22 Mar. 2017.

US Honeybee Population Still Low but Rising

Swamp Stomp

Volume 17, Issue 51

All is not lost regarding the American honeybee population. A step in the right direction regarding the resurgence of their population occurred when winter losses were the lowest in more than a decade, according to a U.S. survey of beekeepers released May 25, 2017.

The annual Bee Informed Partnership survey found that the beekeepers lost 21 percent of their colonies over last winter. Though this number is still too high, it is the lowest winter loss percentage since the survey started in 2006 and an improvement from nearly 27 percent the winter before.

The ultimate goal of the U.S. government is to keep losses under 15 percent in the winter.

“It’s good news in that the numbers are down, but it’s certainly not a good picture,” said survey director Dennis vanEngelsdorp. “It’s gone from horrible to bad.”

vanEngelsdorp, a University of Maryland entomologist, believes that the lower percentage can be attributed to the reduction in varroa mites, a lethal parasite. According to him, a new product to combat the mite and better weather for pesticide use is the reason for the decrease in the parasite.

The average over a 10-year span for winter losses is 28.4 percent.

“We would of course all love it if the trend continues, but there are so many factors playing a role in colony health,” said bee expert Elina Lastro Nino at the University of California Davis, who wasn’t part of the survey. “I am glad to see this, but wouldn’t celebrate too much yet.”

There has been a steadily increasing decline in bees and other pollinators over more than ten years. Scientists blame the decline on a mix of parasites, disease, pesticides and poor nutrition.

Though the largest losses to bee colonies occur during the winter, these losses happen year round. Another good sign is that the survey found that the yearly losses were also down, but not to record lows. The survey found that around one third of the honey bee colonies that were around in April 2016 did not survive the year. This is improvement to last year when the yearly loss rate was higher than 40 percent.

The survey was started by the U.S. government but is now run by a nonprofit. The survey collects its data from nearly 5,000 beekeepers who manage more than 360,000 colonies. University of Montana’s Jerry Bromenshenk believes that the study gives too much weight to backyard beekeepers rather than commercial beekeepers.

Source: Borenstein, Seth. “Survey Finds US Honeybee Losses Improve from Horrible to Bad.” ABC News. ABC News Network, 25 May 2017. Web. 29 May 2017.

Senate Tax Bill Includes Provision to Drill Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

Swamp Stomp

Volume 17, Issue 50

Senate Republicans passed a tax reform bill early Saturday morning with a provision opening up parts of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil and gas development. The provision, introduced by Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, passed 51-49 along party lines, save Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tennessee) who voted against the bill. The measure represents a “critical milestone in our efforts to secure Alaska’s energy future,” Murkowski said in a statement.

Established by former President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1960, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR, spans across 19 million square acres of Alaska’s North Slope, making it the largest wildlife refuge in the United States. Often referred to as the “Serengeti” of North America, the refuge is home to over 200 species of wildlife, including caribou, arctic foxes, wolves, and a variety of bird species that migrate from all over North and South America to roost there in the summer months.

The ANWR is also the only refuge in the country where one can see black bears, grizzly bears, and polar bears in the same place, and serves as a wildlife corridor for species to move between the Canadian Yukon territory to the east and the Chukchi Sea to the northwest. A number of Alaska Native tribes, such as the Gwich’in, continue to rely on caribou herds that migrate through the refuge for sustenance.

After former President Jimmy Carter expanded the refuge in 1980, Congress designated 1.5 million acres on the north coast of the refuge as a Strategic Petroleum Reserve, or SPR, after the fears of oil shortages intensified following the Arab oil embargo and Iranian Revolution of the 1970s. Geologists estimate the SPR contains around 12 million barrels of accessible crude oil, potentially worth around $685 million.

Senate Republicans argue that the drilling would only minimally impact the environment since only tracts within the SPR would be eligible for sale to gas companies and citing newer, cleaner extraction technologies that supposedly are more environmentally friendly.

Yet Democrats and environmentalists remain unconvinced, referencing the fact that oil spills remain incredibly common and that the SPR is virtually the only spot in all of Alaska where caribou calve in the spring. The measure to allow drilling in the ANWR was attached without debate to the tax reform bill rather than being presented as a stand alone bill. Since the tax reform bill has a direct impact on the national budget, it only needed a simple majority to pass, rather than the usually 60-vote filibuster threshold applied to all other legislation.

“Little wonder Senate Republicans rushed the vote: it wouldn’t survive the light of debate,” said Rhea Suh, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, of the legislation.

About a week before the Senate’s vote, twelve House Republicans had written a letter to both the House and Senate arguing against drilling the ANWR, saying that the refuge’s resources “simply are not necessary for our nation’s energy independence.”

Now that both the House and the Senate have voted on a tax reform bill, they will come together in the coming weeks to work out the differences and discrepancies between their two bills before submitting a bill to President Trump’s desk to either sign or veto.

Sources:

  1. Howard, Brian Clark and Sarah Gibbens. “See the Alaska Wildlife Refuge Targeted for Drilling by Tax Plan.” National Geographic. National Geographic, 2 December 2017. Web. 3 December 2017.
  2. Gardner, Timothy. “Drilling in Alaska refuge liklier as Senate clears tax bill.” Reuters. Reuters, 2 December 2017. Web. 3 December 2017.
  3. Koss, Geof and and Kellie Lunney. “Procedural knots tie up ANWR, reform push.” E&E Daily. E&E News, 1 December 2017. Web. 2 December 2017.
  4. Solomon, Christopher. “America’s Wildest Place is Open for Business.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 10 November 2017. Web. 3 December 2017.
  5. Westneat, Danny. “How to drill for oil in Alaska’s wildlife refuge: Sneak it through in tax bill.” The Seattle Times. The Seattle Times, 22 November 2017. Web. 3 December 2017.

Military Bases Provide Thriving Environment for a Rare Butterfly

Swamp Stomp

Volume 17, Issue 49

The U.S. military is helping a tiny rare butterfly flourish by providing the living space for these butterflies on their military bases; right next to tanks and other military vehicles.

The butterfly is called a frosted elfin and it has a wingspan of an inch. They choose to call several military bases home because of the way the military manages open spaces, said Robyn Niver, an endangered species biologist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

“Military training requires vast open areas, so these bases are some of our last great wild places,” Niver said.

The butterfly has been confirmed to be living at Westover Air Reserve Base and Camp Edwards in Massachusetts; Fort McCoy in Wisconsin; Fort Bragg in North Carolina; and the New Hampshire State Military Reservation, she said.

It is not just coincidence that has the frosted elfin choosing to live at multiple military bases. All of these bases manage their vegetation through controlled burns, which create the perfect conditions for wild blue lupine and indigo to grow, the frosted elfin caterpillar’s two host plants.

The small butterflies were first seen at Westover in Chicopee, Massachusetts, about 20 years ago, according to Jack Moriarty, the base’s chief of environmental engineering.

The reason for the strict vegetation control at the base is because it is critical for the safety of the massive C5 military transport aircraft that are housed there. If the vegetation is cut too short, it attracts geese and gulls, increasing the risk of aircraft strikes. If it is allowed to grow too tall, turkeys, deer, and coyotes move in. Lupine and indigo are just the right height.

Though there have been stories of earlier sightings, the frosted elfin was official confirmed at Camp Edwards on Cape Cod just this spring, said Jake McCumber, the Massachusetts Army National Guard’s natural resources manager.

“It was pretty exciting. I was thrilled,” he said. “Our grasslands are in the headquarters area, so it’s probably the busiest part of the base.”

The area is used for the setup of field artillery equipment and helicopter exercises.

The frosted elfin has lived in Fort McCoy for about two decades but it appears that recently the population has exploded, said Tim Wilder, the base’s endangered species biologist. An annual count found about 130 of the insects on the base this spring, the most since the survey began in 2009.

Frosted elfins –which live anywhere from New England to Florida, and as far west as Texas — are not on the federal list of endangered species, but they are headed there, Niver said. Several states already list them as protected, and they have disappeared completely from others.

The hope is that the knowledge gained about the populations of frosted elfins — and a whole host of other rare insects, birds, bats and turtles that thrive on military bases — can be replicated elsewhere.

“Our next step now is finding out how we can work with other partners besides the military to try to boost numbers of rare species on other lands as well,” Niver said.

Source: Pratt, Mark. “Rare Butterfly Thrives On, and Because Of, U.S. Military Bases.” The Denver Post. The Denver Post, 03 July 2017. Web. 03 July 2017.

COP23 Climate Conference: Small Island Nations Voice Concerns

Swamp Stomp

Volume 17, Issue 48

Diplomats, government representatives and members of civil society convened in Bonn, Germany from November 6th to 17th to attend the twenty-third annual UN Climate Change Conference, or COP23.

The purpose of the conference, presided over by Prime Minister of Fiji, Frank Bainimarama, is to showcase how UN member states have been implementing solutions to meet the climate change mitigation objectives laid out by the Paris Climate Change agreements of 2015, as well as to build further collaborations between governments, private organizations and communities in reaching the goals of the 2030 Agenda for sustainable Development, which includes climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies.

During his opening speech, Prime Minister Bainimarama emphasized the dire need for international cooperation in addressing climate change, saying “we must preserve the global consensus for decisive action enshrined in the Paris Agreement and aim for the most ambitious part of that target – to limit the global average temperature rise to 1.5 degrees above the pre-industrial age.”

As President of the conference, Bainimarama and the Fijian delegates, as well as other members of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), have emphasized the particular plight small island nations face as the effects of climate change grow, from more frequent and powerful storms to sea level rise submerging large swaths of low-lying territory and salinizing sources of fresh water.

For many such islands, including Fiji, more than just natural resources and land are at stake of being lost to rising oceans; coastal villages that have been inhabited by humans for hundreds and sometimes thousands of years are often home to ancestral burial sites that have significant religious and culture meaning to the living. As small islands take steps to relocate these villages to higher ground, this connection between people and their land is compromised, if not lost altogether.

Sailosi Ramatu, headmen of the recently relocated Fijian village of Vunidogoloa, told E&E news that “we cherish our culture and religions in the village and [those are] two main things that we continue to teach our children today, as it is what we will be known for.”

While internal relocation remains an option for island nations with higher ground to move to, lower-lying islands, such as the Maldives in the Indian Ocean and Kiribati in the Pacific, face the stark choice of fortifying their islands against the tides or leaving their homelands altogether.

The Maldives, whose islands average a mere 1.5 meters above sea level, is opting for the former choice, selecting some of their islands to be buttressed by sea walls and artificially constructing others. In 2014, Kiribati made plans for the latter, buying 8 square miles of land from Fiji in the event of mass evacuations. “We would hope not to put everyone on [this one] piece of land but if it became absolutely necessary, yes, we could do it” then President of Kiribati Anote Tong told the Associated Press.

Due to the financial burden climate change is expected to impose upon less developed countries, wealthier countries during the Paris Climate Change agreements agreed to provide 100 billion US dollars towards funding adaptation in less developed countries. While this is a non-binding agreement, evidenced by President Trump’s removal of the United States from the agreements earlier this year, countries like China and Germany have continued to fund adaptation and mitigation strategies in poorer countries.

At the beginning of the conference in Bonn, Germany pledged 50 million euros to the Least Developed Countries Fund as well as an additional 50 million euros to the Adaptation Fund, making it the largest donor to the Adaptation Fund. Commenting on these donations, German Federal Environment Minister Barbara Hendricks said: “With this pledge of support we are sending a clear signal that Germany stands in solidarity with those people and countries particularly affected by climate change. I hope that this pledge will lend good momentum and inspire a constructive atmosphere for the negotiations.”

Sources:

  1. Chemnick, Jean. “Islanders face severe threat. Can they convince the world?” Climatewire. E&E News, 9 November 2017. Web. 10 November 2017.
  2. “UN Climate Change Conference 2017 Aims for Further, Faster Ambition Together.” UN Climate Press Release. United Nations Climate Change, 5 November 2017. Web. 10 November 2017.
  3. “UN Climate Change Conference begins: Germany supports developing countries in climate change adaptation.” Current Press Release. Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety, 6 November 2017. Web.  10 November 2017.