scientists have warned that the earth’s climate is close to reaching a tipping point known as the point of no return. in an interconnected climate system, passing one tipping point could trigger a flood of irreversible changes. if global temperatures rise past 1.5 degrees celsius, ice sheets could collapse entirely, leading to even higher sea levels. as the sea ice melts and mixes into warming oceans, which store massive amounts of carbon dioxide, the gas from deeper waters will be released. this chain reaction will create an enduring cycle of global warming. 

not only are anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions causing us to near the climate tipping point, but the united nations has reported that climate change exacerbates inequality. this disparity is caused by the three factors of increased exposure of disadvantaged groups to the effects of climate change, increased susceptibility to damage, and decreased ability to cope and recover. advantaged groups that are the most prepared for climate disasters are often the ones who live in safer areas or have the ability to move and rebuild their lives after a disaster hits. for them, the threat may not seem real. 

even amid the massive california wildfires, residents were not affected equally. as the sky turned an apocalyptic red, celebrities were criticized for hiring private firms to supplement state and local firefighters to protect their homes. meanwhile, housekeepers and gardeners continued to go to work in these homes out of fear of losing their jobs or because no one had bothered to notify them of evacuation orders. for some, the wildfires are a looming threat of losing everything they’ve worked for. others watch the destruction from the safety of their second homes. 

while the nation is busy debating whether climate change is real, a false dichotomy exists between climate change and equality. climate change is interwoven with racial injustice, gender inequality, and poverty, among other issues. these are not separate issues for policymakers to prioritize, one over the other. by creating awareness for the interconnectivity between the united states’ most pressing problems, people might be able to understand that climate change is tangible. if the nation cannot move past the argument of what is true and what is false, we are already past the point of no return. 

to overcome this argument, we need to believe in science. this may seem simple, but how many modern scientists have household names in the united states? scientists have become faceless in our society due to a lack of adequate communication between scientists and the public. the american media has a duty to become better equipped with reporting scientific news by listening to scientists and translating their quantitative findings into a language that can be consumed and understood by the general public. the pew research center has found that public trust in the government has hit record lows. if the media practiced science reporting that did not get entangled with american politics, trust in science and trust in the government could be renewed. 

in an electoral year, people voted based on the partisan issues they stand for and against. unless we can urgently return climate change to its status as a bipartisan issue, the conversations surrounding taxes, gun laws, or abortion rights won’t matter anymore.

minimum wage and frontline workers have been losing their jobs and continue to live paycheck to paycheck during this pandemic. since march, over 30 million americans — or 18.6% of the workforce — have filed for unemployment. the highest it has been since 2009. 

the rich have been the only ones to escape the economic unpredictability of the outbreak — and have actually capitalized on the socioeconomically disadvantaged. 

according to an article published by business insider, between the mid-march and mid-april, billionaire wealth in the u.s. increased $282 billion, or 9.5%. in the same period, over 22 million americans filed for unemployment. this further exposes the wealth gap and wealth discrepancies within our nation. 

“no one has benefited as much as jeff bezos, whose wealth surge is unprecedented in the history of modern markets,” the business insider article states. “bezos’ wealth has increased over $25 billion since january 1, 2020 and 12 billion since february 21, 2020, the beginning of the covid-19 pandemic” (in the united states). 

it is not new information that impoverished, marginalized groups are being affected by this pandemic at significantly higher rates compared to those who have a good economic standing. we may be asking ourselves why this happens, but the truth is that many workers on the frontlines of the coronavirus outbreak are people from a lower socioeconomic status. 

according to an american community survey by the census bureau, essential workers make up nearly 70% of the labor force. of those, 25 million nonelderly adults were working minimum wage paying jobs, making them part of the bottom 20% of earners, as reported by the kaiser family foundation.

unfortunately, people who lose their jobs, often lose their health insurance as well. those lucky enough to have employer-supplied insurance, and are an “essential worker,” must keep working in hazardous conditions to keep their insurance.

these workers risk their lives daily in order to afford their basic expenses. taking time off is not a luxury they have because many of them live paycheck to paycheck, and most low-wage jobs must be done in person. 

in addition to this we not only see the impact of coronavirus alone, but we also see the impacts of environmental racism in marginalized communities. environmental racism is defined as the disproportionate impact of environmental hazards on people of color. environmental justice is the movement’s response to environmental racism. this results in communities being disproportionately exposed to toxic and hazardous waste based upon race.

environmental racism is caused by several factors, including intentional neglect, the alleged need for a receptacle for pollutants in urban areas, and a lack of institutional power and low land values of people of color.

in new york city we see the impacts of environmental racism clearly. according to a study by harvard chan school of public health, there is a positive correlation between air pollution and covid-19 deaths. additionally, this study also discusses the poor ventilation in lower income housing which contributes to bad indoor air quality. communities of color are disproportionately faced with lack of access to safer environments. this includes transportation, healthy food, and even exposure to pollution in the air and water. because of this, communities of color are at a higher risk to be exposed to covid-19. 

according to a time article about how covid-19 is affecting new york city’s low-income neighborhoods, “the zip codes in the bottom 25% of average incomes represent 36% of all cases of the disease, while the wealthiest 25% account for under 10%.” this further shows how marginalized groups are being attacked by this virus.

however, we don’t only see higher incidence rates within impoverished communities alone, but in minority populated areas as well. african-americans, latinos, and native americans are being affected by covid-19 at significantly higher rates compared to non-hispanic white persons.

according to the centers for disease control and prevention, compared to a non-hispanic white person, non-hispanic american indian or alaska native persons and non-hispanic blacks are approximately 5 times as likely to contract covid-19, while hispanic or latino persons are approximately 4 times as likely. this shows the significantly disproportionate rate at which minorities are being affected by this virus.

in michigan, where 14% of the state is identified as black, the coronavirus is killing black individuals at significantly higher rates — around 40% of the state’s 1,076 coronavirus deaths as of april 9 — compared to the average death toll of coronavirus, a vox report said. 

this type of statistic, however, is not specific to michigan. we are seeing these repeated patterns nationally. in chicago, according to cbs news, 70% of covid deaths have been black people. and dr. joia crear-perry, founder and president of the national birth equity collaborative, also discussed how the 70% of the covid deaths in louisiana were black people — even though they make up just a third of the population. 

the u.s. department of health and human services’ office of minority health reports the death rate for black people is higher compared to whites for “heart disease, stroke, cancer, asthma, influenza and pneumonia, diabetes, hiv/aids, and homicide.” additionally, underlying medical conditions — which include asthma, heart disease, and other chronic lung disorders — have higher incidence rates among black people.

vox reporter fabiola cineas explains higher death and incidence rates as “hundreds of years of slavery, racism, and discrimination.” redlining, policing, and restricting access to public health resources “have compounded to deliver poor health and economic outcomes for black people.” 

in addition to people continuing to work in unsafe conditions, many have to risk their lives prematurely for the sake of the economy and welfare of other people. our government has made it very clear that the economy is the no. 1 priority during these trying times. 

florida is the epitome of this phenomenon. as it has continued to a full reopening, cases are now spiking and yet the governor is refusing to recall any sort of freedoms they have enacted — to the detriment of everyone’s health. the state’s health department has confirmed a total of 497,330 cases and 4,402 resident deaths as of aug. 4. while individuals have to work tirelessly, and simultaneously try to maintain safe conditions, ultimately the government has brushed off efforts of safety in order to redeem the economy. by prematurely opening america, it puts people at significant risk and workers may not have the choice of stay at home. 

as the coronavirus pandemic continues to unravel, it will continue to expose discrepancies that do exist within our nation. for now the best thing we can do is acknowledge the issues that do exist and keep ourselves and others informed of what is really happening. 

we must support the environmental justice movement and continue the support for black and brown lives to create justice for marginalized communities. additionally we should continue to do our best to keep workers and civilians safe. this could look like moving to restrict the full opening of america, and continuing stimulus checks for marginalized individuals. we also must continue to take heavier safety precautions and make masks a requirement for everyone to keep ourselves safe. by doing these things, we can promote long-term sustainability in regards to both the coronavirus and the general welfare of our people.  

—

for more information

• covid resource kit (google doc) 
• the african american policy reform full resource list

however, amidst this fervor, the ongoing and destructive trade of wildlife by bushmeat hunters in rural communities across asia, africa, and south america persists. this fact has not been addressed by the international community—an oversight that could have grave consequences for preventing future pandemics.

pressuring governments to issue bans and closures of wet markets holds real value for preventing the emergence of infectious disease. however, it falls short of addressing the root issue: the pervasive circulation of bushmeat within communities. the demand for wildlife will persist even if wet markets close, as bushmeat holds immense cultural, medicinal, and spiritual value for many communities around the world. 

wildlife conservationist dr. colin a. chapman has spent 30 years studying the effects of disease, nutrition, stress, and climate change on biodiversity and primate abundance in east africa. he believes that we must shift the approach away from the narrow perspective of wet markets. instead, he suggests adopting a comprehensive understanding that considers local bushmeat hunting and the social constructs sustaining these practices.

controlling the informal trade of bushmeat will be a challenge in low-income communities. in many african countries, the communities adjacent to national parks are the most economically deprived. illegal hunting and the trade of bushmeat provides people with a quick cash income for which there are few alternatives. closing or banning markets entirely will likely make hunters and their families less-well off, and does not provide market sellers or hunters with alternative jobs and means of income.

one option to reduce reliance on bushmeat for food is the expansion and diversification of agricultural products. providing drought resistant seeds, fertilizers, and crops high in value, as well as supplemental nutrition, may help encourage more farming over hunting. the african wildlife foundation’s “congo shipping project” is an example of a successful scheme that provided transportation of additional crops to markets, encouraging the distribution of crops over bushmeat.

at the same time, scientists from the max planck institute for evolutionary anthropology have demonstrated the importance of site-specific education, particularly on the disease risk and environmental impacts of bushmeat hunting. an understanding that bushmeat leads to pandemics and the extinction of valued species will equip the next generation with knowledge that will incentivize sustainable practices throughout their lifetimes. 

educational programs are not only relevant in schools, but also in local community organizations, churches, and among decision makers. these programs must be based on careful science and mustn’t overlook the inherent cultural value that bushmeat represents for many populations.

a report by the convention of biological diversity (cbd) and the convention on international trade in endangered species (cites) emphasize that solutions for reducing the risks associated with the trade will require coordinated efforts. specifically, close monitoring schemes alongside legislation and enforcement were highly recommended. 

these interventions are undeniably expensive and require site-specific planning and implementation. in africa, conservation efforts are supported heavily by the tourism industry. since the pandemic, biodiversity and wildlife conservation has been left highly vulnerable to human threats—resulting in elevated poaching, habitat destruction, and loss of biodiversity.

even without the added vulnerability of the pandemic, rates of bushmeat extraction is staggering. studies in the congo basin estimate that each year approximately four million metric tons of bushmeat are extracted, the equivalent of four and a half million cows. 

even endangered chimpanzees, our closest living relatives, are being hunted. in the northeastern regions of the democratic republic of congo, it was estimated that up to 7% of the chimpanzee population is killed each year for bushmeat.

such hunting rates are unsustainable and have already resulted in the eradication of entire populations. in the last 40 years alone, 12 large vertebrate populations have been extirpated in vietnam and over longer timescales, human hunting has been responsible for the extinction of much of the unique megafauna of madagascar. 

the coronavirus has created an atmosphere of uncertainty, scarcity and mass panic. demands for banning the wildlife trade are intensifying. 

in the past, such bans were self-defeating. in china, three legislative attempts on banning bushmeat have failed , in 2004, 2016, and 2020. banning wildlife hunting or consumption entirely amidst unaddressed social norms will only heighten the unregulated trade of bushmeat, elevate organized crime, and create the impression of a shortage, likely increasing the prices and incentives to poach.

the current atmosphere of uncertainty created by the coronavirus presents an opportunity for targeted, site-specific solutions, says dr. colin a. chapman. 

leveraging the current crisis to implement tailored solutions—alternative livelihoods, diversified crops, educational programs, and heightened regulations—will more effectively curb the bushmeat trade and mitigate the risk of future pandemics. in doing so, conservationists hope we can create a win-win scenario whereby both wildlife hunting decreases and hunters have viable alternatives, reducing the threat of another global pandemic.

—

about the author:

cate twining-ward is a correspondent alumnus of planet forward, grand-prize winner of storyfest 2020, and graduate of the george washington university.

—

citations:

bennett, e. l. 2002. is there a link between wild meat and food security? conservation biology 16:590-592.

bennett, e. l., and m. rao. 2002. wild meat consumption in asian tropical forest countries: is this a glimpse of the future for africa. pages 39-44 in s. mainka and m. trivedi, editors. links between biodiversity, conservation, livelihoods and food security: the sustainable use of wild species for meat. iucn, cambridge.

challender et al, april 8, 2020. coronavirus: why a blanket ban on wildlife trade would not be the right response, the conversation us.

crowley, b. e. 2010. a refined chronology of prehistoric madagascar and the demise of the megafauna. quaternary science reviews 29:2591-2603.

fa, j. e., and d. brown. 2009. impacts of hunting on mammals in african tropical moist forests: a review and synthesis. mammal review 39:231-264.

fa, j. e., c. a. peres, and j. meeuwig. 2002. bushmeat exploitation in tropical forests: an intercontinental comparison. conservation biology 16:232-237.

kano, t., and r. asato. 1994. “hunting pressure on chimpanzees and gorillas in the mataba river area of northeastern congo.” african study monographs 15.

milner-gullard, e. j., e. l. bennett, and sccb. 2003. wild meat: the bigger picture. trends in ecology & evolution 18:351-357.

roth, annie, april 8, 2020. poachers kill more rhinos as coronavirus halts tourism to africa. the new york times

walsh, p. d., et al, 2003. catastrophic ape decline in western equatorial africa. nature 422:611-614.

wilkie ds. 2000. roads, development, and conservation in the congo basin. conservation biology 14:1614-1622.

—

this story also is published on mongabay.

staring into the abyss of the covid chasm gives you a sinking feeling. not only for our health now and in the future, not only for the people who’ve lost jobs, and marginalized communities that are so incredibly vulnerable – but also for the really big health crisis ahead, the one affecting the planet: climate change.

this is a weird moment when we talk about all the warnings we had, about the science we ignored or shrugged off, about the ticking time bomb we didn’t get to fast enough. the coronavirus sickens people. climate change afflicts the planet.

so what are we to make of this? how can we learn from our current experience and apply these lessons to the next looming threat, recognizing that it will, by necessity, take a back seat until the current health emergency and economic crisis subside.

for decades, our world’s leaders have struggled to adequately respond to climate change. despite advice from scientists, policymakers have been largely unable to balance the long-term wellbeing of the planet with immediate economic concerns.

the effects of covid-19 have been devastating. the numbers are staggering. globally, there have been more than 2 million cases and more than 152,000 deaths as of mid-april. i hate to pile on here, but climate change can be a mass killer as well. the world health organization (who) has come in for some searing criticism, but despite its bureaucratic and diplomatic shortcomings, there are well-trained, highly respected scientists and docs who work there. in 2018, the who released a report estimating that between 2030 and 2050, climate change could result in 250,000 additional deaths per year.

like the doctors who studied and warned of pandemics, scientists have been issuing increasingly urgent warnings about the effects of climate change. in the united nation’s sizzle video the report provocatively asks, “how much time is left?” but some influential world leaders, from brazil’s jair bolsanaro to america’s president trump, have questioned the legitimacy of climate science and tried to turn back the clock on climate action.

maybe experience with the pandemic will change some influential minds. british prime minister boris johnson, whom covid-19 sent to intensive care, was criticized for a slow response when the pandemic first surfaced. johnson is considered by many a bit of a science skeptic. on climate change, the prime minister’s stance has wavered. his absence at a climate debate last year didn’t inspire confidence that he took the issue seriously. well, now that he’s out of intensive care, maybe the world – and science – looks different. staring into that abyss scares the hell out of you.

the mirroring responses to covid-19 and climate change extend beyond government. public opinion also has been partisan for each. public opinion polling of covid-19 in mid-march revealed that 68% of democrats, but only 40% of republicans, felt concerned that an immediate family member could contract the virus. similar, though even deeper divisions, define the public’s attitudes toward the climate crisis. a february 2020 pew research center poll found 78% of democrats believe that climate change should be a top priority for the president but only 21% of republicans are so inclined.

covid-19 and climate change are two really big, really daunting challenges. they test humanity’s ability to think long term, assess risk, put our common future first, and make hard choices. addressing them requires us to accept science, acknowledge facts, and resist manufactured debate and clickbait conspiracy theories.

researchers are scrambling to produce tests that will quickly tell people whether they’ve got the virus. scientists are racing to develop a vaccine. countries are spending trillions of dollars to stabilize endangered economies. similarly, climate change has inspired amazing new technologies, created a culture of sustainability, given rise to a powerful new generation of voices demanding action. we learn. we invent. we race the clock.

there is hope.

———

about the authors: frank sesno founded planet forward in 2009 and is the director of the george washington university school of media & public affairs. sarah dicioccio is a second-year graduate student at the school of media and public affairs, where she focuses on digital advocacy and works as a graduate assistant.

hanging like “shimmering dark clouds on the horizon,” these catastrophic swarms can reach the size of moscow, eating and destroying everything in sight. the locusts are a product of extreme weather swings, and pose deadly consequences for the people who rely on the crops they feed on. their rapidly increasing numbers are likely to present “an unprecedented threat to food security and livelihoods in the horn of africa,” as illustrated by the u.n. food and agriculture organization on jan. 29. 

kenya hasn’t had a locust outbreak to this magnitude in 70 years, and it is the worst that somalia and ethiopia have seen in 25 years. a typical desert locust swarm contains 150 million locusts per square kilometer, which is hard to imagine, but on average can destroy enough crops in one day that would have fed 2,500 people. 

what are the regional implications? 

the impacts of these swarms are immense, but also vary greatly depending on the region. the regions currently affected by the outbreak stretch across the horn of africa, so far reaching ethiopia, somalia, and northeast kenya. some say that the locusts have traveled from as far as yemen. however, if favorable breeding conditions persist, the u.n. fears these swarms could reach over 30 additional countries in africa and asia. south sudan and uganda are already bracing for their arrival, as predictions show that “current numbers could grow 500 times by june.”

unsurprisingly, scientists have declared a clear culprit: climate change. nairobi-based climate scientist abubakr salih babiker stated that 2019 was one of the wettest years on record due to rapidly increasing water temperatures in the indian ocean. warmer ocean temperatures furthermore caused an unusually high number of tropical cyclones off of africa, providing the perfect conditions for locust breeding. 

tom twining-ward, a senior technical advisor for the united nations development program with expertise in climate change adaptation (and, full disclosure, the author’s father), said “historically, the most important natural factor controlling populations of locusts is the weather,” and that “the current invasion in east africa is no doubt intensified by climatic changes that are neither caused nor fully understood by the local farmers.”

another challenge is that the only effective method to battle the insects is by the aerial spraying of pesticides, which is not only very expensive, but difficult to implement in many regions due to military presence. it’s also dangerous: for livestock, farmers, and the environment alike. 

so what should be done? a previous outbreak from 2003 to 2005 in northern africa cost more than $500 million to control and more than $2.5 billion in harvest losses. are big organizations and donors willing to step up and fund these efforts? 

twining-ward also highlighted that “while the focus in the medium- to long-term should be on coping measures and adaptation to climate change, there is an urgent need for donors to address the significant drop in agricultural output in the region, and provide the necessary resources to address food shortages and hunger in the affected countries.”

unfortunately most media coverage of the swarms are focusing predominantly on the disastrous effects and implications of the swarms, rather than proposing realistic solutions for controlling them.

a call for action, not a plea for help

the urgency of the situation has not been talked about nearly enough. now that the u.n. has shared its serious concerns, and somalia has declared a national emergency, news media is beginning to give the story a bit more attention, but not enough to reflect that this may very well affect millions of people. photographs have been an effective way to give people abroad some perspective. pictures and videos show hundreds of millions of locusts’ darkening horizons for miles, forming dense, ravenous, clouds. 

but, as with what has been written in the articles themselves, the pictures in the media portray reoccurring themes of devastation and helplessness: crops wilted, farmers in distress banging on metal pots and pans while whistling, using whatever means they have to scare away the locusts. 

as a concerned environmentalist and humanist, the lack of action and attention to combat this crisis is even more disappointing, especially when recalling the media attention and public outcry in response to the shocking australian wildfires. the comparison between coverage, and lack thereof, between the two emergencies is tragic, especially considering the impactful role that the media has in helping create action and awareness —  information that could benefit the countries in need.

i can’t help blaming the tendencies of certain media to make untrue generalizations and to portray africans as helpless or as careless perpetrators of an environmental crisis, while negating the relevant historical factors that have contributed to the environmental vulnerability of many africans. 

one aspect of the stories told about african countries — particularly the environmental ones — that i think often goes undiscussed, is that much of this vulnerability is in fact due to legacies left behind by colonial development policies. let us remember that all countries south of the sahara, excluding liberia, have at some point been under european colonial rule, and these structures significantly contributed to the uneven development felt in regions today. african countries dominated by colonial rule were impacted by policies that often promoted unsuitable and environmentally damaging agricultural systems, polluted industrial sectors, furthered inadequate workers rights, disrupted ecosystems and communities with big infrastructure projects, created violent arguments over land dispossession, and so on. 

exasperation steadily accumulated the more that i investigated this story, reading articles scattered with fragments of outdated stereotypes and tropes, but lacking in relevant historical factors that inevitably impact the severity of the locust outbreak. it is unfair not to consider the geographical, geopolitical, and historical ramifications that have shaped, and that will continue to shape, the way these events unfold. 

i sincerely hope that somehow perceptions sculpted by the mainstream media will begin to fade, as people rely more heavily on local and regional news sources. it is our own duty as consumers of media to expect stories that tell the whole story, and to call out discrepancies when we see them. we should expect equal coverage of stories that tell both the triumphs and tragedies. i hope that the tendencies to depict environmental disasters in vulnerable regions will shift from focusing solely on the crisis and its negative consequences, to more on the solutions that can be implemented to mitigate them.

while her words were flattering, i can’t help but wonder how critical i am to young lyvi’s life. as the executive director of the jackson hole kayak club, a small non-profit dedicated to the growth of whitewater kayaking, my primary job is to ensure her wellbeing and safety on the water. in a safe environment, i can coach and teach lyvi about the movements of the river, the varying features and hazards, and how much fun spending time outside on rivers can be. but, at the end of the day, i am a young man who shares little in common with a 12-year-old girl. i can’t help but wonder how a female coach could have provided a more rich experience for lyvi that day on the water.

the disconnect between lyvi and myself reflects a larger issue in outdoor recreation. across kayaking, skiing, climbing, mountain biking and other outdoor adventure sports, the majority of coaches, athletes and participants are white men. deeply embedded social structures and gender politics cause the gender gap in outdoor recreation, resulting in an outdoor culture where everyone looks, acts and thinks similarly. this “boys club” attitude of the outdoors can create invisible yet impassable boundaries that alienate women and people of color from interacting with the outdoors and participating in the activities that i enjoy the most. but, this is old news.

outdoor recreation has been immersed in white american culture since the 1800s. colonial influences shaped our perception of the outdoors and how we interact with nature, including driving through national parks and participating in extreme outdoor activities. these influences, paired with the traditional masculine influences of domination and conquest, frame the outdoors as a space for macho white males. though the recreation industry has a flawed history, playing outside is a critical step for young people to care about their environment.

according to the u.s. forest service, outdoor recreation introduces people to the outdoors and stimulates public interest in varying environmental issues, generating support for the preservation of air, water and wildlife. as climate change becomes an increasingly important issue, the importance of outdoor recreation thus also grows. and, while we seek various solutions to the complex problem of climate change, we must rely on fresh and different perspectives from various people to tackle such a problem. outdoor recreation opportunities must be open to everyone.

at a young age, outdoor recreation (kayaking and skiing specifically) inspired me to protect the spaces i love to play in, and find thoughtful solutions to various environmental issues. but, my passion for the environment did not drive my return to skiing and kayaking; my coaches did.

i fell in love with my ski and kayak coaches over the years. i looked up to their demeanor, their high level of skill in the sports i was beginning to enjoy, and at their own passion for the outdoors. i wanted to be like my coaches, and felt i strongly that i could grow up to be just like them. every single one of them was white and male. i only ever had one female ski coach, and she was a substitute.

in order to expand the range of people participating in outdoor recreation, we must create the space for a wider range of coaches and role models for the young people wanting to play outside.  a female coach for lyvi has the power to transform a scary situation into a light hearted one. her leadership and demeanor are both traits for lyvi to follow. and, finally, a female coach’s interaction with nature and the outdoors can pave the way for lyvi to develop her own passion and care for the environment, cultivating new ideas and passion necessary to combat global climate change.

in my role at the kayak club, i find myself in a unique situation where i can fix this systemic issue of exclusivity in outdoor recreation. i want to be more thoughtful in who i hire as coaches, who participates in our programs, and making my favorite sport accessible to anyone interested. these sports, along with the coaches and role models in my life, were critical in helping me find my voice and passions, and i hope to create the same opportunities for everyone and anyone interested in playing outside.

while i might have saved lyvi’s life that day on the water, with the right role models in her life she might be able to save our world.

perhaps one of the most reported stories in recent weeks leaves much to be desired. in the space of just 48 hours, 2,500 fires had been started in the amazon rainforest, not only placing at risk the trees that absorb 5% of annual emissions, but also the more than 10 million species of animals who claim the rainforest as their home. and, as usual, twitter is abuzz with haunting images of burning trees, most of which come from last decade, but hey, it’s the thought that counts! #prayforamazonas.

which begs the question, considering just how deadly these fires are, brazil must be scrambling to stamp them out, right? if this was what you thought, you’d be surprised.

because the only thing that catches faster than forest fires is a viral phenomenon known as the trump effect. it’s crossed the atlantic, reaching so far as england,/ and now, it could be spreading into south america. the latest victim is brazilian president jair bolsonaro, a long-time opponent of environmental advocacy in brazil, so much so that his people have dubbed him captain chainsaw, which isn’t a becoming title for someone in charge of 60% percent of the world’s largest carbon sink.

with this in mind, it should come as no surprise that when the amazon fires started, he told reporters, “the ministry of justice can send 40 men to combat the fight, but do you understand that? forty men. there are not enough resources. we are in chaos.” 

his failure to meet fire with fire (or in this case, water) was just one act in a docudrama of negligence.

bolsonaro reportedly spent the evening of aug. 23 watching standup from a prominent christian right-wing comic. and to add to the irony, he did this while his pre-recorded speech was broadcasting, the one apologizing for his inaction.

with a national emergency formally declared (48 hours of noxious destruction later), bolsonaro finally had grounds to call in the brazilian army to lend a hand (and pail) to the fire. but a bad taste still lingers in the mouths of many international spectators. 

as early as aug. 28, when these fires first made international news, bolsonaro was calling out environmental ngos in his country, professing that “there is a strong suspicion that people from the ngo’s lost the teat.” he suggested that environmental protection agencies were intentionally destroying swaths of the amazon to “bring about problems for brazil” after losing government funding. and if that sounds like a crackpot idea, it’s because it is.

when reporters asked bolsonaro for the basis of his so-called suspicions, he shot back, “for god’s sake, there’s no proof of that, nobody writes, ‘i will set fire to that.’” because of course, no one could possibly be careless enough to leave a paper trail of environmental neglect. except, that is, if you’re bolsonaro.

in the wake of this amazon disaster, open democracy uncovered incriminating powerpoint presentations used at a february meeting between bolsonaro’s government officials and leaders in the para state of brazil, home to the amazonia national park. one slide read, “development projects must be implemented on the amazon basin to integrate it into the rest of the national territory in order to fight off international pressure for the implementation of the so-called ‘triple a’ project.” triple a here refers to a group of multilateral conservation projects in the amazon rainforest, the andes mountains and the atlantic ocean, all of which bolsonaro has doggedly opposed.

what’s more? the powerpoint continues, “to do this, it is necessary to build the trombetas river hydroelectric plant, the Óbidos bridge over the amazon river, and the implementation of the br-163 highway to the border.” bolsonaro made it easy for us; there is no prevarication here, nor misdirection. the objective is loud and clear: stymie conservation efforts by damaging brazil’s natural resources. and, if you’ll kindly recall bolsonaro’s unfounded accusations of ngos working in his country, it seems he was guilty of the very behavior he decried.

in spite of all this inculpatory evidence, i think the mainstream media gives bolsonaro a lot of undeserved credit. how much of his decision to confront the amazonian conflagration is attributable to his altruistic and justified concern for brazil, and how much is just, uh…sem bolas?

shortly after his whole “40 firefighters” statement, france’s golden boy, president emmanuel macron, publicly threatened bolsonaro with an obstruction of the eu-mercosur free trade agreement, a groundbreaking trade deal between the two blocs that eliminates tariffs on agricultural goods from the mercosur bloc. macron, and virtually any other un member state, would have known that this was an incontrovertible pressure point, not just for brazil but also for argentina, paraguay, and uruguay, the other members of mercosur. 

the timing of this threat and bolsonaro’s reinstated commitment to the amazon fires just seems too quick, too reactionary, too…apprehensive. and, as usual, bolsonaro made his intentions clear when, in his aug. 23, evening speech he said, “forest fires exist in the whole world and this cannot serve as a pretext for possible international sanctions.” i don’t know, what could he possibly be nervous about? 

thankfully for him, a few leaders have stepped in to offer a reassuring squeeze. ok, more like one. in a recent tweet, president trump said, “our future trade prospects are very exciting and our relationship is strong, perhaps stronger than ever before.” sounds like trump really empathizes with bolsonaro’s plight. or maybe their priorities just align really well. after all, both are right-wing capitalists, climate change deniers, and have structured their entire campaigns around building stronger, more self-sufficient economies (fine print: through an unadulterated bashing of foreign competition). 

but the similarities don’t end there. bolsonaro’s rhetoric also displays uniquely trumpian tones, occasionally producing bewildering gems like “brazil is like a virgin that every pervert from the outside lusts for.” in all seriousness, that comment does deserve a second look because it offers us an incisive, behind-the-scenes peek at the primary motive behind his vehement anti-environmentalism: political control. 

bolsonaro has given the logging, mining, and farming industries in brazil clearance to annex land owned by native communities on the sole basis that they manage what he considers unreasonably vast amounts of wealth. similarly, he cannot distinguish between foreign aid and sovereignty infringement. look, for example, at how his administration views norway’s and germany’s generous donations to the amazon fund.

“we’re not naïve,” said brazilian chief of staff onyx lorenzoni, “there’s a view out in the world, sponsored by nongovernmental organizations, that relativizes brazil’s sovereignty over the amazon. here’s a little message: ‘don’t play around with us.’” 

the point is, bolsonaro is digging himself a precipitous hole, especially when he lets his own ego stand in the way of him and a $20 million donation from the g7. 

meu deus. the good people of twitter may need to change their tune. #prayforbolsonaro.

my mindset

while in high school, i watched the films “blackfish” and “the cove” multiple times, learning about animals in captivity and the poor treatment of animals in some facilities. this is the viewpoint of many “animal rights activists”–that animal captivity equates to animal abuse. i was one such “activist,” assuming that all zoos and aquariums were cruel facilities, no better than a prison for so many innocent creatures. i’d repost various articles, videos, and photos from animal rights groups on social media, captioning that these “cute” behaviors exhibited by the animals aren’t cute at all but are examples of phenomena like zoochosis, the display of repetitive and unnatural behavior by an animal under human care, indicative of psychological stress on the animal.

however, my opinion began to change when i took ethics and animal welfare, one of my first college courses. as a part of the curriculum, we visited big cat rescue in tampa, fla., where we had the chance to observe how these animals benefited from being under licensed human care, rather than their prior environment. we learned about how most of the animals there were rescued from abusive or unnatural environments; some, originally bought as pets, were abused or abandoned, while others were made performance cats — most of which had been living under actual captivity their entire lives. almost all of the cats there — lions, tigers, panthers, jaguars, etc. — were ineligible for release into the wild, but were thriving and seemingly content under human care at this organization.

one of the biggest catalysts to shifting my opinion of animal wellbeing under human care was a guest presentation in my comparative psychology class in spring 2018. a zookeeper from the african animals exhibit at zootampa spoke to our class about the elephant habitat, the animals the zoo cares for, and how many people complain the elephants “don’t have enough space.” however, her argument showed these people are woefully misinformed. she explained how the animals have the correct amount of calculated space for all of the individuals as needed for a living environment that has no predators and readily available food and water; if given more space, it would not be utilized, as it is not needed.

animals under human care

currently there are 233 accredited u.s. institutions within the association of zoos and aquariums (aza), which “collectively draw more than 195 million visitors every year,” according to their website. a common element of environmental issues is the difficulty to care about something if it can’t be seen or isn’t understood. aza organizations allow for up-close observation and education of exotic species that most people otherwise would never see in their lifetimes.

many people have a hard time caring about issues like climate change, sea level rise, species extinction, etc., because they can’t be seen with their own eyes. many aza organizations offer interactive programs, which can not only expose people to conservation issues, but provide an opportunity to appease individual desires to interact with exotic species, which is generally otherwise illegal. aza organizations also have standards they have to meet or exceed in several areas of operation, including animal welfare, veterinary care, education, conservation, physical facilities, and many others. these rigorous standards ensure that aza accredited facilities are focused on many key aspects, the most important of which being the care and well-being of the animals.

in addition to aza-accredited facilities, there also are 73 alliance of marine mammal parks and aquariums (ammpa) organizations worldwide. of these 73 organizations, 27 are accredited u.s. facilities, many of which focus on dolphin and marine mammal conservation. ammpa accreditation requirements include a quality of care that meets or exceeds rigorous regulations, including standards similar to those required of aza organizations.

marineland dolphin adventure (st. augustine, fla.) is an accredited ammpa facility and is an interactive educational facility. originally established in 1938 as marine studios, mda now specializes in conservation. as a former intern, i learned the proper phraseology to use when referring to various aspects of an animal care facility. for example, they taught me that while the word “captivity” is undescriptive and controversial. “human care” is a better way to describe the way in which the animals are handled. the animals are not imprisoned; most often they are living in safe and enriching environments, looked after by people who deeply care for them. furthermore, saying “captivity” silently supports the negative attitude toward caring for animals in these facilities. other terminology changes suggested during my internship included alternatives such as “habitat” instead of “tank” and “preferred” rather than “good/bad” in reference to behaviors. changing one’s word choice helps promote a more neutral connotation toward professional animal care institutions.

often, language used by many “anti captivity” movements consists of word choice geared toward framing these organizations in a negative perspective. “captivity,” “suffering,” “exploited,” and “slavery,” are just a few terms used by the empty the tanks movement to describe organizations that keep cetaceans under human care. these words make the practices of all zoos and aquariums seem corrupt, but this is untrue. my personal experiences in the field have shown me that what these movements view to be negative practices are actually carefullyplanned functions and interactions that benefit the well-being of the participating animals.

in addition to caring for more than 800,000 animals collectively, the aza also has a program that helps protect threatened and endangered species, many which do not reside under human care. s.a.f.e. (saving animals from extinction) uses conservation action, public education, and expert wildlife care to make an effort in preserving species on the brink of extinction. currently, there are nine species/groups of species on the aza s.a.f.e species list, with conservation efforts underway to help improve their status on the iucn red list. additionally, 33 species are currently listed as extinct in the wild; aza efforts have successfully conducted the introduction of captive-bred organisms into the wild to improve conservation status, resulting in the improvement of 3 species, brought back from wild extinction. these species include the przewalski’s horse, black-footed ferret, and california condor. this shows that, if raised for this purpose, animals can be properly released into the wild after residing under human care.

furthermore, animal care requires some amount of animal training in order to conduct proper care, and these taught behaviors are completely voluntary. these are the most basic of behaviors, allowing for a trainer or zookeeper to perform daily care rituals. behaviors like presenting a body part or limb, specific movement, participation in blood taking or hydration sessions, and anything else that may not be a natural behavior for the animal but assists with proper care are referred to in the animal care community as “husbandry” behaviors. however, during my time at marineland, i observed dolphins outright refuse to do a requested behavior, and the trainers respect this. in addition, the dolphins aren’t requested to do any behavior that isn’t naturally displayed by wild atlantic bottlenose dolphin.

the psychological truth

many believe animals of particularly high cognitive ability can only be happy in the wild instead of human care, but this is a myth. it isn’t psychologically possible for animals born under human care to miss a life in the wild because they have no knowledge of it, nor is it an argument of “intrinsic knowledge” or evolution. additionally, it’s common understanding that a dolphin cannot suddenly be placed in the ocean if it has never had to hunt or evade predators, nor been exposed to toxins and bacteria that exist in the ocean.

nevertheless, i’m expressly aware that the system is not perfect and that there are zoos and aquariums with practices that aren’t exactly stellar. many nonaccredited facilities don’t have the same rigorous standards required of aza and ammpa organizations, proving that indeed the practices of some facilities may not be entirely focused on animal welfare. however, my argument lies within the purpose and benefits of the concept of zoos and aquariums, and within the ideal world that all animal care facilities would operate at the highest standard possible. i am aware that this is not always the case, but the original idea isn’t corrupt. while many places originally were based on entertainment, and many still rely on it, there has been an increasingly popular transition into direct education through observation and interaction. experiential education has, time and time again, been proven to be one of the most effective methods of education. people connect with and care more about things they can outright see and experience.

civilization as we know it depends on a diversity of plants, animals and bacteria for crop pollination, food from land and sea, medicines, and for maintenance of livable temperatures. our over-consumption of earth’s resources has destroyed animal habitats, polluted the environment, and decimated wildlife populations.

humans created this crisis. we are also able to stop it. the first step is to immediately lower the levels at which we consume the earth’s limited resources. we must also break the mold of our existing approach to animal species conservation, and implement more effective solutions, ones based on the reality that the health of human beings, wildlife and the planet itself are inextricably linked. it is essential that we forge new partnerships that break the silos which currently constrain conservation efforts.

health in harmony is a planetary health organization whose conservation programs are driven by an understanding that human wellbeing is fundamentally linked to the health of surrounding wildlife, and vice-versa. to help in our efforts, we have forged critical partnerships with the places where more americans learn about our natural world than from any other: zoos.

zoos accredited by the association of zoos and aquariums (aza) provide a connection to the natural world for nearly 180 million people every year, including 51 million students. in fact, more people visit zoos annually than attend every major league professional football, baseball, basketball and hockey game in the unites states, combined.

the idea that zoos are nothing more than arks for animal species doomed to extinction is antiquated and untrue. aza zoos are at the forefront of conservation efforts that save animals in the wild from extinction. with the support of their local communities, north american zoos and aquariums have helped bring the whooping crane, the california condor and the black-footed ferret back from the brink of extinction.

this year, zoos have funded $220 million worth of conservation initiatives like health in harmony’s in indonesian borneo. zoos are critical partners in health in harmony’s efforts to preserve rain forest coverage for orangutan populations and hundreds of other species.

more than a decade ago, borneo’s gunung palung national park was losing tree cover at an alarming rate. this was mostly due to illegal rain forest logging by people in marginalized communities bordering the park, who had no other way to afford food and health care for their families. because of the resulting habitat loss, innumerable species were completely lost, while others, such as the bornean orangutan, became endangered.

health in harmony spent over 400 hours listening to people in 40 villages bordering the park. what emerged was a greater awareness of the critical connection between their health and the health of the surrounding rain forest. during our listening exercises, members of these communities designed a holistic intervention that combined health care with jobs training and a reforestation program. in the decade since, there has been an 88 percent reduction in the number of households logging rain forest inside gunung palung national park. the loss of primary rain forest has stabilized, 20,000 hectares are growing back, and – significantly – habitat for 2,500 endangered bornean orangutans has been protected.

our partner zoos around the united states are now able to integrate the story of our success within their own extraordinary orangutan exhibits. guests learn how the merger of human development and rainforest conservation protects these charismatic animals. and the zoo’s orangutans themselves magnify that understanding: guests learn through these exceptional ambassadors what is needed to protect their wild cousins, as well as other animal and plant species.

news of biodiversity loss and climate change is too often apocalyptic and dire. we have the ability to avoid a sixth mass extinction and must shine a light on these success stories. unique partnerships like the one between aza zoos and organizations like health in harmony represent an untapped resource for galvanizing efforts to reverse species extinction. zoos connect game-changing conservation efforts like ours to millions of zoo guests each year, renewing hope for a world where all people respect, value and conserve wildlife in wild places.

—

jonathan jennings is the executive director of health in harmony. jeff wyatt, dvm, is chair of the aza accreditation commission.

sound familiar? welcome to america, where the average citizen consumes a staggering 217.5 pounds of meat each year, a figure that far exceeds the global average of 41.3 pounds per capita. meat is part of our culture; many of us grew up with meat at the center of our dinner plates, under the impression that it was good for us. yet, in recent years, mounting evidence has suggested high levels of meat consumption may not be the healthiest option for our bodies and our planet. so why are we still married to meat, despite the warning signs?

nutrition scientists have been investigating meat for years. in 2015 the international agency for research on cancer (iarc) classified processed meat as a carcinogen, and red meat as a probable carcinogen. the who and american cancer society next urged the public to limit meat consumption. diets rich in animal protein are also linked to increased cardiovascular risks and all-cause mortality, while those high in plant-protein show protective effects.

from a sustainability standpoint, livestock has a higher water and carbon footprint than any other food, emitting significant amounts of methane and other greenhouse gases from their farts and burps. researchers estimate that it takes about 100 times the amount of water to produce animal protein compared to vegetable protein. this all goes without mentioning, of course, the animal welfare concerns many have surrounding commercially raised meat.

with climate change an urgent threat, and historically high rates of chronic, preventable disease, we must put down our forks and assess if we are engaging in best-practice dietary-initiatives for our bodies, the planet, and humanity at large.

seeing as the food system contributes roughly a third of the greenhouse gas emissions, and that 5 of the 10 leading causes of death in the u.s. are diet-related, there’s a real opportunity to better our health and protect the planet.

yet we often eschew this opportunity, allowing convenience and fleeting preference to trump ethical considerations surrounding the food choices we make. we blissfully fail to acknowledge the impacts of meat, drowning out uncomfortable thoughts with the sizzling sound of bacon frying on the stove. the time is now, however, to push for decreased consumption of meat.

a colossal task, meat reduction strategies historically have have been met with deep resistance. when a school in texas attempted to implement a meatless monday policy, offering just one meatless meal per week, backlash erupted, and the measure was seen as overly coercive. and when reduced meat consumption was proposed for the 2015 dietary guidelines, heavy meat-industry lobbying ensured the suggestion did not make the cut.

what opposers who denounce such initiatives as overly paternalistic fail to realize, however, is that their taste for a meat-heavy diet is a result of a preference that has been architected for them. the government uses tax dollars to feed our meaty appetites, spending billions on agricultural subsidies, a bulk of which support commercially raised meat, often incentivized by “big meat’s” hefty political contributions to persuade lawmakers.

and the meat industry’s power extends beyond its pocketbooks. marketing campaigns have established cultural norms that contribute to our meat-heavy mindset, telling us our bodies need “high quality” animal protein or we will become malnourished or anemic, and that eating only plants is unsatisfying and emasculating, all contributing to resistance to shift away from animal protein. after all, believing these notions is far easier than changing something so personal and emotionally charged as our diets.

but if we continue to consume meat at the present rate, we set ourselves on a trajectory for resource depletion, irreversible damage to the planet, and a multitude of preventable health risks. moreover, we jeopardize the right for future generations to food access and a healthful planet.

with momentum growing in the plant-based food movement, there has never been a better time to nudge for reduced meat consumption. incentivization of meatless monday practices, continued advocacy for reductionist messaging in dietary guidelines, and education about meat’s impacts, may prove monumental.

even if national policy is presently out of reach, we can begin by adjusting our own diets and work on changing the social norms around meat. and we don’t have to push the world into veganism overnight to make a difference. by eating a little less, applauding when meat-free options are offered out of the home, and celebrating plant-based meals, we can decrease meat demand and foster a cultural shift where plants become preferential. doing so can shrink our ecological footprint, improve our health, and ensure sustainable food choices for future generations. if there is a true desire to make a positive impact for health of humanity or the planet, it’s time to put the money where our mouths are, and back off the beef.