• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
UT Shield
The University of Texas at Austin
  • Bios

May 11, 2021, Filed Under: Forests

Saving the Rainforests of Southeast Asia

A plan to save the forests

The majority of the world’s tropical rainforests that act as the lungs of the world are located around the equator in South America, Western Africa, and Southeast Asian.  The rainforests of Borneo are critical to efforts to combat climate change and are at the center of efforts to combat climate change.

The island of Borneo is a large, densely forested landmass north of the island of Java and east of peninsular Malaysia. The countries of Malaysia, Brunei, and Indonesia occupy the island all contribute to the deforestation problem.

Geographic Location of Borneo in Southeast Asia

Borneo has lost over 50% of its forests since 1950 as human development, the lumber industry, and palm oil plantations have taken over. This deforestation has accelerated with time and the COVID-19 pandemic has not caused a corresponding drop in deforestation like global emissions. The economic insecurity caused by COVID-19 will only encourage further deforestation in the name of economic growth.

Tree Cover Lost: 1950-2020

The deforestation trends were particularly vulnerable to palm oil prices that were high in the early 2010s. Palm oil plantations rapidly increased their deforestation efforts from 2005 to 2020. This deforestation effort largely followed the price of palm oil, which has recently doubled from its pre-pandemic low.

Global Palm Oil Price in Malaysian Ringgit per Ton

To make matters worse, the Indonesian government recently announced that it intends to move its capital from Jakarta on the island of Java to the province of East Kalimantan on the island of Borneo. This move has been reported to involve shifting at least 1 million people from Jakarta to Borneo, possibly causing the pollution and urban sprawl of Jakarta to come to Borneo.

Pollution in Jakarta

Counter the Palm Oil and Lumber Industries – Create a Global or Regional Rainforest Economic Fund

The biggest factor in deforestation of Borneo is economic insecurity. President Biden’s proposal for a $20 billion Amazon Rainforest fund needs a tailored equivalent for Southeast Asia. This fund would counter economic incentives to cut down rainforests for palm oil or lumber.

Implement government-to-government carbon trading on a larger scale. 

Similar to a rainforest economic fund. This system of carbon trading would allow countries outside of Borneo to fund conservation efforts in exchange for their equivalent carbon sink offset. This would help shift the island of Borneo to largely a carbon sink from slash-and-burn palm oil plantations and industrial logging, to a conservation environmental sink.

You can make a Difference – Reduce your Palm Oil Consumption

Palm Oil is used in everyday items such as: vegetable oil, biodiesel, and skin products. Consumers can reduce the incentive for palm oil plantations to cut trees down by cutting down or removing these products from their lives.

May 10, 2021, Filed Under: Air Pollution, Climate

Driving Down Emissions

To tackle climate change, we have to revolutionize how Americans travel


When most people imagine greenhouse gas emissions they picture the smoky fumes and flares from oil wells and coal-fired power plants. While these industrial sites are a large part of the problem, transportation is actually the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. What’s more, most of these transportation emissions are not from airplanes or big rigs–they come from the passenger cars most Americans drive every day.

Automotive News

The Biden administration has made it clear that climate change is one of its top priority and it wants the US to be a climate leader. But before the US can lead others, it needs to adopt stronger domestic climate policies. Improving the way Americans travel is an important first step.

Part of the reason for high transportation emissions in the US is because Americans drive more than people in any other country. Americans drive about 3.2 trillion miles every year, in part because US communities are built to provide space, rather than compact efficiency. Likewise, American vehicle manufacturers have historically prioritized size, rather than fuel economy (remember Hummers?). In 2018, light-duty vehicles emitted 1,105.8 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, which is equivalent to 279 coal-fired power plants. All of that carbon is trapping heat in the planet’s atmosphere and changing our environment.

Our Changing Climate

Not only is reducing transportation emissions better for the environment, but it’s also better for people too. Aside from carbon dioxide, tailpipe emissions also release toxic pollutants like particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides. These pollutants can cause several health issues, including asthma, respiratory infections, and certain cancers. When these pollutants interact with sunlight, they also create ground-level ozone. When ozone forms in the atmosphere it helps protect us from UV radiation. At the ground level, it can trigger severe respiratory distress and reduce lung function. Long-term exposure to ground-level ozone can even cause permanent scarring. People are constantly exposed to these airborne pollutants. However, exposure is especially high in concentrated urban areas and when people stand near idling vehicles, such as students waiting to get on their school bus.

Fuel Freedom Foundation

There are three main ways to transform the transportation sector in the US and reduce greenhouse gas emissions: make electric vehicles (EVs) more accessible for the average American, expand (and electrify) public transportation networks, and make walking and bike riding more feasible.

Make EVs more accessible to consumers

US EPA

Every year, more and more people are buying EVs. In fact, there will likely be 18 million EVs on the road by 2025! But many people on the market looking to buy a new car balk when they see the EV price tag. What they don’t know is that the federal government and most states offer tax incentives or rebates for EV buyers. Once these discounts are applied, the price of an EV is usually comparable to a traditional vehicle. The Biden Administration’s recently announced American Jobs Plan also includes spending for EV development, which will help bring down prices over the next few years. Compared to traditional vehicles, EVs also save money in the long run. The average EV owner will save over $4,500 in fuel costs within the first few years, not to mention lower maintenance costs over the lifetime of the vehicle. With Jaguar and GM announcing their plans to go all-electric within the next 5 to 15 years, respectively, it is a matter of time before EVs are the norm.

Expand electric public transportation

Expanding public transportation is a great way to reduce emissions, air pollution, and traffic congestion. But electric public transportation is even better. Some communities are beginning to explore electric public transit by adopting electric school buses. If school buses can go electric, there’s no reason public buses can’t be electric too. Recent proposals have called for an alliance between utility companies and school districts (or local governments) to finance electric buses. Essentially, the school district would receive the bus and the utility company would receive extra energy storage.

“We’re still coasting on infrastructure choices that were made in the 1950s. Now’s our chance to make infrastructure choices for the future that are going to serve us well in the 2030s and onto the middle of the century…”

Pete Buttigieg, US Secretary of Transportation

When communities think creatively they can develop solutions that benefit everyone, like the school-utility alliance. Instead of putting more money into highway expansions and parking lots, communities need to consider what the future of transportation looks like and how they can get there. Electric public transportation is the future, and communities need creative problem solving and public support to make it a reality.

Make communities more user-friendly

While EVs and public transportation are excellent ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, nothing can top walking and bike riding. Unfortunately, most communities are developed for cars. In suburban communities, having a car is essential to get around, and little attention is given to safe walking or bike paths. Newer cities, such as cities in Florida, were also developed for cars, and it is often unsafe to get around any other way. As a result, almost 6,000 pedestrians and bicyclists are killed annually across the United States, and thousands more are injured.

If new community developments are compact and designed to encourage walking and biking, the whole community will be better off. People are healthier and happier when they exercise and are outdoors. With fewer cars on the road, air pollution and noise pollution are reduced, and there will be less traffic for those that need to drive. And of course, there are fewer greenhouse gas emissions. Existing communities can adapt to be more pedestrian and bicyclist friendly by implementing Complete Street policies. Complete Streets modify roadways with elements, like medians or bike lanes, to make the street safer for everyone. Ultimately, communities should be built for people–not cars.

What can you do?

  1. Call on your state representatives to support the Driving America Forward Act. The Driving America Forward Act would double the number of federal tax credits available for EV purchases and extend the tax credits through 2028.
  2. Call on your local representatives to adopt Complete Street policies. Complete Streets policies make the roadways safer for everyone and will encourage more people to walk or ride their bikes.
  3. Vote in local elections to support transportation ballot measures. Statewide and local elections often include ballot measures on funding and expanding public transportation. In 2016, transportation projects worth over $200 billion were voted on across the country. When voters turn out for these initiatives, it shows elected officials that people care about transportation.
  4. Consider making your next vehicle an EV. With tax incentives and rebates, the price of an EV is on par with a traditional diesel vehicle. Follow these links to see what federal and state-based incentives are currently available.
  5. Walk, bike, or take public transportation when these options are available.

Kathlina Brady

May 10, 2021, Filed Under: Climate, Forests

Brazil’s Beef with the Amazon

As domestic conservation prospects for the Amazon rainforest grow dim, the international community must address Brazil’s most damaging industry.

The deforestation of the Amazon rainforest has been a prevalent topic among conservation policy and advocacy groups since the 1970s. Brazil, home to 60% of the Amazon’s 2.6 million square miles of rainforest, has always the focus of conservation efforts. For decades, the catastrophic deforestation of Brazil’s rainforest seemed inevitable. Perspectives began to change in the early 2010s when deforestation rates in Brazil began to decrease drastically, with a 70% decline in the annual rate by 2012 compared to 2005 rates.  

This decline in deforestation has been tied directly to the successful implementation and enforcement of new policies and interventions in Brazil’s soy and beef supply chains. But protecting the Amazon is a continual process, a process that Brazil’s President Bolsonaro has systematically dismantled since he took office in January 2019.  

Starting early in his term, Bolsonaro has promoted the expansion of industrial projects in the Amazon, worked to overturn environmental laws, limited funding to Brazil’s environmental protection agency, and made efforts to dismantle the system of protections and land rights afforded to Indigenous communities by Brazil’s Constitution. In conglomerate, these measures have resulted in the accelerated deforestation of the Amazon, with the 2020 deforestation rate coming in at nearly 2.5 times that of 2012. Bolsonaro’s actions have not only given legal avenues for industry to cut down larger swaths of the Amazon, but his administration’s inaction on policing protected forests has resulted in increasing illegal land seizures and deforestation.  

Though an array of farming and industrial activities has contributed to the deforestation of the Amazon rainforest in Brazil, the country’s growing beef industry has long been the leading driver of deforestation, both legal and illegal. Brazil is the world’s largest exporter of beef products, exporting a reported a record-setting 2.02 million metric tons in 2020. The reported revenue from this trade is $8.4 billion. While both the domestic and export markets for Brazil’s beef are an important part of the Brazilian economy, the industry has come at a steep price for the country’s vital rainforest, the loss of which has wider ramifications for both the regional and global climate, as well as biodiversity. 

Data released in 2019 by Trase, a deforestation and commodities monitoring platform, shows how damaging the demand for beef has been for the deforestation of the Amazon rainforest. Every year an estimated 260,000 to 580,000 hectares of the Amazon rainforest is cleared due to expanding cattle ranching. From 1988 to 2014, 63% of the area deforested in Brazil became cattle pastureland. Between the forest loss and the gasses emitted from the cattle during digestion, Brazil’s beef industry is responsible for around half of the country’s greenhouse emissions.  

According to Trase, over two-thirds of the country’s cattle-related deforestation risk comes from Brazil’s top three beef exporters, JBS, Minerva, and Marfrig. Separate investigations by the NGOs Amnesty International and Global Witness have linked all three companies to cattle ranches where illegal deforestation has occurred. According to a 2020 study, it is estimated that least 17% of Brazilian beef exports are linked to illegal deforestation due to improper monitoring of beef supply chains. 

Brazil’s beef industry is not only disastrous for the Amazon rainforest and global decarbonization efforts, but it has also limited Brazil’s economic potential. Many rural farmers operating in the Amazon have continued to ranch cattle, even though they could make more money – and protect the Amazon from further degradation – by growing acai or oranges. However, social preferences and lagging supply chain infrastructure in Brazil’s rural regions has kept industry tied to low-income and highly environmentally damaging cattle farming.  

What can be done?  

Although previous evidence indicates that domestic policy and enforcement can go far in decreasing the beef industry’s impact on deforestation, the Bolsonaro administration is unlikely to adopt the measures necessary to do so. In the continued absence of domestic action against deforestation in Brazil, there are steps individuals, businesses, investors, and other states’ policymakers can take to protect the Amazon and disincentivize illegal deforestation related to cattle farming. 

One of the best ways to protect the Brazilian rainforest is to decrease demand for Brazilian beef. Both individuals and companies should work to either cut their purchase of Brazilian beef, or else more carefully monitor the supply chain of the Brazilian companies they do purchase from. Both should avoid beef exported by JBS, Minerva, or Marfrig until these companies take more credible commitments to eliminate all links to illegal deforestation. Decreasing the consumption of beef from Brazil will also decrease deforestation caused by another major industry contributing to the deforestation of the Amazon – soy farming. Much of the soy farmed in Brazil is used to make cheap protein-rich feed for cows. If less beef is consumed, fewer cattle will be farmed, and less rainforest will be cutdown for soy farms.  

Another powerful tool to influence change could be through trade sanctions. Much of the illegal deforestation in the Amazon is a result of the absence of punitive measures under Bolsonaro’s administration. If Brazil’s major beef importers set trade barriers and restrictions on Brazilian beef exporters tied to illegal cattle farms, they could fill this gap, changing the incentives of Brazil’s rural farmers.  

Investors can help conservation efforts by investing in the processing, storage, and marketing infrastructure necessary to move Brazil’s agriculture industry away from the low-income and environmentally damaging cattle farming to more sustainable and profitable agricultural industries.  


Rachel Gossett

May 10, 2021, Filed Under: Forests

Saving the Amazon – We did it before and we can do it again

Jaguar (Panthera onca) peeking out through foliage and flowers, Amazon, Brazil. Claus Meyer/Minden Pictures

In recent years, we have witnessed devastating footage of the Amazon on fire. Rising temperatures and deforestation are a few drivers. With climate change presenting an existential crisis, it is easy to feel overwhelmed or hopeless. How can we reverse the damage done to this incredible habitat? Why should we?


THE AMAZON IS BIG, BEAUTIFUL, & ESSENTIAL

The Amazon forest covers over 6 million square kilometers and spans eight territories and countries – Brazil, Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, Colombia, Venezuela, Guyana, Suriname, and French Guiana. Brazil is home to the largest portion of the Amazon, containing roughly 60% of the forest. The Amazon’s ecosystem is wonderfully diverse. There are about 40,000 species of plants, 1,300 species of birds, 3,000 varieties of fish, over 400 types of mammals, about 2.5 million different insects. Importantly, the Amazon forest is a big player in climate change mitigation. The forest is responsible for absorbing huge amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, acting as a “carbon sink.” Globally, forests capture over 7 billion metric tons of carbon yearly, and the Amazon accounts for about a quarter of that total. In other words, the Amazon absorbs about 5% of annual carbon dioxide emissions, giving it an important function in the effort to reduce carbon emissions and help realize the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement.


FOREST UNDER FIRE

As you may be aware, the Amazon rainforest is under attack. Brazilian President, Jair Bolsonaro, steward of the largest portion of the Amazon, has weakened environmental protections and environmental law enforcement in the forest. The deforestation rate in Brazil was on the rise before Bolsonaro but has surged since he assumed office at the start of 2019. In 2020, the Brazilian Amazon deforestation rate reached a ten-year high, with an estimated forest loss of about 11,088 square kilometers. Deforestation has numerous ramifications including soil erosion, crop loss, flooding, loss of biodiversity, an increase in greenhouse gases, and an increase in wildfires.

In 2020, the Brazilian Amazon deforestation rate reached a ten-year high, with an estimated forest loss of about 11,088 square kilometers

—

Scientists from IPAM Amazonia, a Brazilian research group, linked the fires in the Amazon directly to deforestation. Municipalities with the most fire outbreaks also have the highest deforestation rates. The main drivers of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon are cattle-ranching, commodity demand, and logging. Cattle-ranchers set fires to fertilize the soil and clear brush for new land for the cattle to graze on. Other commodities, such as soybeans, also play a driving role in Brazilian deforestation. Brazil is the world’s number one exporter of beef and soybeans, both of which require large amounts of land. While Brazil’s main beef customer is China, the United States imports increasingly more beef from Brazil. In 2020, the U.S. imported nearly 30 million pounds of beef from Brazil, an increase of over 10 million pounds from the previous year. As pro-business ruralistas have gained power in the Brazilian congress, agriculture and business interests get prioritized over environmental concerns.


SUCCESSFUL CONSERVATION EFFORTS

Before the recent rise in deforestation rates in Brazil, the country was managing to steadily decrease the rate of Amazonian deforestation. From 2004 through 2012, the annual forest loss in Brazil declined by roughly 80%, reaching a low of about 4,500 square kilometers that year. The decrease in deforestation is a result of domestic policies as well as environmental activism, private and public sector initiatives, and international pressure. In 2003, the Brazilian government implemented a four-phase Action Plan for Prevention and Control of Deforestation in the Legal Amazon (PPCDAm). The PPCDAm played a large role in significantly cutting the deforestation rate in Brazil. This initiative expanded the protected land areas in Brazil, improved remote monitoring via satellites, and increased law enforcement in the forestry sector. These efforts saw great results, halving the deforestation rate in Brazil from 2004 to 2007.  When deforestation rates slightly rose again in 2008, the Brazilian government identified and made public a list of municipalities that were the worst deforestation offenders. Law enforcement efforts were then targeted at these municipalities. In addition, the Brazilian government required environmental compliance in order for landowners to qualify for government-subsidized agricultural credit. Together, these efforts helped Brazil reach an 80% reduction in deforestation from 2004 to 2012.


RETURNING TO CONSERVATION

What worked before can work again. We as private citizens can work with NGOs and civil society groups to apply international pressure on the Brazilian government to re-implement and strengthen the PPCDAm action plan. Brazil should halt and then limit commodity-driven deforestation efforts, enforce environmental laws, and respect and protect indigenous lands.

We must apply pressure on the Brazilian government to re-implement and strengthen the Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Deforestation in the Legal Amazon

—

As an individual, eat locally sourced beef when possible. Even better, reduce your beef consumption. As a consumer, you can choose to support “rainforest safe” products. For example, look for the “Rainforest Alliance Certified” logo. You can also support organizations working to protect the Amazon such as Amazon Watch, Amazon Conservation Team, and the Rainforest Trust. Find more organizations here. And of course, find organizations or initiatives in your city that work for environmental conservation and protection. Get to know your local elected officials and learn more about what they are doing to protect the environment.


May 10, 2021, Filed Under: Forests

Fighting Climate Change & Biodiversity Loss through Reforestation

The world is rapidly losing vital forest cover. The Food and Agriculture Organization estimates over 50 million hectares of forest were lost globally between 2000 and 2010.

Forests are a valuable tool against climate change because they absorb large amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. As a result, land-use changes, like deforestation, can significantly increase global carbon levels. Strong evidence points to agricultural expansion as the main cause of deforestation in tropical regions: 83% of agriculture expansion between 1980 and 2000 was into forests. Emissions from agriculture-driven deforestation is highest in Latin America at 78%. Latin America contains only a quarter of the world’s forests. However, its rates of deforestation are significantly higher than world averages. In 2019, the tropics lost the equivalent of a football field of tree cover every six seconds the entire year.

Deforestation also imperils global biodiversity. Rainforests in the tropics are some of the most biologically diverse places on the planet. Their species diversity is a “gigantic repository” of biological diversity and genetic resources for humans.

According to the World Resources Institute, conserving existing forests could cut carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by an estimated seven billion metric tons annually – equivalent to getting rid of every car currently on the planet.

Fortunately, interventions to reduce deforestation have found success. Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation+ (REDD+) is a results-based program for reducing deforestation by paying countries to conserve forests. REDD+ programs help developing countries address deforestation by providing better understanding of deforestation drivers, improving forest monitoring capacities, and increasing stakeholder engagement.

Source: Food and Agriculture Organization

REDD+ not only conserves forests, but aids developing countries with financial assistance. REDD+ initiatives found success in Indonesia, reducing forest loss in 2018 and 2019. REDD+ also helped facilitate important forestry policies in Guyana. However, the program sometimes fails to adequately address illegal logging or the conversion of forest for agricultural production.

Intensifying agriculture is another possible remedy to tropical deforestation. Innovative land use management while considering developing countries’ economic needs can conserve tropical forests, empower smallholder farmers, and alleviate global food insecurity. A systemic approach looks to increase agricultural productivity by enhancing farming methods, natural resource management, and smallholder farmer livelihoods. Complex agroecosystems can help absorb climate shocks and disease epidemics.

Although deforestation around the world increased rapidly over the past few decades, Costa Rica provides a model for success. Costa Rica had one of the highest deforestation rates in the 1980s. It is now considered a model of environmental sustainability. 

Source: Mongabay

Costa Rica has intensified agriculture and forestry in recent years, with agricultural production concentrated on the most suitable land. Encouraging other tropical regions to displace their land use needs to developed countries can prevent deforestation. Forests in developed countries are typically less biologically diverse, and maintenance is more easily facilitated. Costa Rica is now a major producer of bananas and pineapples, and its forests have transitioned to net-reforestation rates.

May 10, 2021, Filed Under: Climate

The Right to a Clean and Healthy Environmnet

Houstonians evacuating their homes through flood waters during Hurricane Harvey (ABC News)

Hurricane Harvey was my first taste of the catastrophic effects of climate change. The storm stalled over Houston for four days, dumping a total of 60 inches of rain. A storm of this nature was unprecedented, the constant rainfall in conjunction with poor land management caused serious flooding that damaged hundreds of thousands of homes. When the rain cleared cleanup efforts started and everyone did their best to move forward but the shadow of Harvey still hangs over the city. 

Beyond the increasingly dangerous nature of storms, their frequency has increased as well. Just last year there were a record number of storms in the Atlantic. Hurricane Harvey is evidence of the impact of climate change and a mere glimpse of what our future will be if we do not appropriately address Climate Change.

The global average temperature is rising as a result of greenhouse gasses, like carbon, in the atmosphere. If temperatures rise above 2 degrees, the effects would be beyond those catastrophic events we have already witnessed. As we face the realities of Climate Change, we must work harder to prevent temperatures from rising beyond catastrophic levels and consider how we will address the fallout of climate change. Regardless of what level of warming we hit, there will be impacts and we must be prepared to face them.

The primary approach to address climate change has been through international environmental agreements which set goals to reduce carbon emissions. There has been some success in these efforts, but I believe we can go further by addressing climate change through a Human Rights framework. Enumerating our environmental rights in an international convention, via additional protocol to an existing convention, would put the focus on us, the humans that will suffer if climate change goes unchecked. 

The international human rights regime is already well established with mechanisms for enforcement in place. There is even a precedent for environmental rights. Under both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights there is a protection for the right to an adequate standard of living. This is not a specific enumeration of environmental rights, but the negative impacts of climate change certainly violate this right. Therefore, we need to add a specific protocol on environmental rights to the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. 

Having an environmental rights protocol would provide a secondary means of holding States accountable to their Climate Change commitments and might incline more states to actively participate in mitigation efforts. A human rights approach will also help address the tension between developed and developing states when it comes to commitments – ensuring no state is detrimentally affected by climate goals. Finally, a human rights approach will help us prepare for the very real consequences of climate change that we will have to face.

When the catastrophic impacts of climate change start to make areas of the planet inhabitable and climate refugees are displaced from their homes a human rights framework will give them legal standing. Additionally, it is my hope that by emphasizing a rights-based framework to climate change and putting the focus on those people that feel the effects of the warming planet, others will be more compassionate and more inclined to change their behaviors to help mitigate the effects. 

You can support a rights-based approach to climate change with just your voice. Be vocal about environmental rights, and write your representatives illustrating your support for a protocol on environmental rights. Additionally, you can support environmental rights by supporting NGOs that work to protect and promote environmental rights. 

We need to take climate change and its effects seriously and that means taking a rights-based approach to climate change. 

May 10, 2021, Filed Under: Oceans/Fisheries

Fisheries, fisheries everywhere, but not a regulation in sight

Image Credit: The Guardian

“Exactly what happens in the Galápagos [Islands] happens in locations around the world and it’s terrifying.” These were the words of Mercedes Rosello, director of House of Ocean, a not-for-profit legal consultancy that monitors illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing (IUU fishing), in response to a massive buildup of Chinese fishing vessels off the coast of the Galapagos islands in the fall of 2020. Sadly, this is nothing new. This specific occurrence of long-distance fishing looked to have occurred just outside of Ecuador’s Exclusive Economic Zone, what has become a classic strategy of nations looking to extract ocean resources far from their borders while still maintaining a veil of legality. These vessels often use tactics such as shutting off their transmission responders in order to avoid detection. China’s vast fishing vessel fleet, now the world’s largest, has been found off the coasts of West Africa to Latin America, plundering ecosystems and disrupting coastal communities around the world. In West Africa, for example, a 2018 report by the Environmental Justice Foundation found that 90% of Ghanaian-flagged vessels had Chinese involvement. As detrimental as these vessels can be, the problem persists far beyond the global movement of Chinese fishing vessels, and global action is needed to correct the drivers, access and punishments for such activity. Apart from the environmental concerns stemming from the global overfishing threat, including declining biodiversity and damage to sea beds, overfishing causes damage to developing nations who rely on seafood as a major source of employment and subsistence and lack the monitoring capabilities to adequately protect their seas.

Out of Sight, Out of Mind

            Overfishing persists largely as a governance challenge. Oceans remain a common pool resource, and therefore present a significant challenge of regulation. Attempts have been made to provide excludability to oceans, but much of our oceans remain like the wild west: lawless and unmanned. Regional Fishery Management Organizations (RFMOs) have primarily been charged with managing and conserving fish stocks in a particular region, but historically, they have been unsuccessful at preventing overfishing and maintaining healthy fish stocks.  RFMOs were not made for and are not able to adapt to today’s plundering of the oceans as a result of their fundamental design structure. Ocean resources are clearly not unlimited, as they perhaps were once thought to be. Fisheries management must adapt as well. Countries such as China have virtually transformed the fishing game with massive fleet sizes that seem to answer to no one. Rethinking ocean governance that takes into account modern technological advances must be implemented to stop as well as reverse the negative impacts of overfishing.

A global fisheries management organization could be an answer to this issue. Borders do not exist in the open ocean, so how should we expect for regional management units to effectively manage the borderless existence of sea life? A global fisheries management organization could effectively convene scientists to ensure that catch limits are made with sound data, countries can coordinate on fishing issues of mutual concern, and create best practices for issues like port-based controls to combat overfishing, among other governance concerns.

Operating with Impunity

            The high seas remain one of few modern wildernesses of our day. While this may sound a touch romantic, this vast swath of our planet is one that remains largely unpoliced with no clear international authority; a perfect place for criminals to operate with impunity. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), IUU fishing activities are responsible for the loss of 11–26 million tons of fish each year, which is estimated to have an economic value of $10–23 billion. Much of the illicit fishing activity coincides with forced labor and human trafficking. For example, take the case of Thailand, where such abuse is common. Men or boys are offered a job in construction or some other lucrative industry by a human trafficker. The trafficker tells the worker that the debt incurred during passage will be settled at a later time. When the worker arrives at the port and realizes the job is on a fishing boat, the debt the worker accrued is used to sell him to the fishing boat captain, at times keeping these boys and men captive at sea for several years at a time in inhumane conditions. Tackling the issue of illegal fishing as a contributor to overfishing and human rights abuses is essential. Monitoring and enforcement of such IUU fishing should be done in collaboration with organizations like the International Labor Organization along with the International Maritime Organziation.

Grades Matter for a Sustainable Fishing Market

Just as much as the decisions of commercial fisheries matter, so do that of consumers. Providing easily digestible information on the sustainability of seafood to consumers is of the utmost importance to transform demand for sustainably caught sea food. The Marine Stewardship Council has in fact already created an MSC blue fish label, which is applied to wild fish or seafood producers from fisheries that have been certified to the MSC Standard. The global volume of tuna caught to the MSC’s globally recognized standard for sustainable fishing more than doubled from 700,000 tons in 2014 to 1.4 million tons in September 2019. Further work on giving consumers the right information to make smart choices that enhance the market for sustainable fish could also go a long way in motivating fisheries to adopt more sustainable practices. Putting pressure on major international grocers to only buy MSC blue label certified seafood, but also approving the grocer as an MSC certified grocer could make for a strong incentive for grocers to “go green” with their buying choices, as well as arm consumers with information to make good use of their purchasing power.  

Addressing overfishing from a governance, demand, and human rights perspective is needed to shed light on a topic that has not gotten its fair share of attention. At its surface, the term overfishing doesn’t often strike a tone of importance in the minds of your average person, but it should and must. As a consumer, you can use your purchasing power to shop sustainably at your local grocery store, or urge your store to stock such products. At the global level, governance structures need a complete overhaul along with revolutionary information and data transparency to drive informed decision making, and finally, a fundamental transformation of the issue is needed to take into account the grave human rights repercussions resulting from overfishing which persists around the world.

Caroline Corbett

May 9, 2021, Filed Under: Oceans/Fisheries

Tuna: What’s the Catch?

How smart shopping habits can help save the future of the commercial tuna industry


Since the 1970s, tuna fishing has increased by over 1000%. Tuna, a nutritious and widely available protein source, is now the most eaten and second most caught fish in the world.

But purchasing a can of tuna can have disastrous environmental consequences. Some species are even on the brink of extinction, but it doesn’t have to be this way. We can change our consumption habits to promote sustainably caught tuna and species with stable stocks.

Tuna is a low-calorie and low-fat protein source, containing a variety of essential vitamins and minerals. It’s often the sole seafood item on restaurant menus, and even fast-food chains such as Subway promote it as a ‘healthier’ sandwich option, even though their tuna sub may not be tuna at all. Yet, one in four Americans eat tuna weekly, pointing to the fish’s rise in popularity as a healthy alternative.

Image credit: Viki Mohamad

Gazing down an aisle of grinning fish plastered onto small aluminum cans—reading everything from albacore or skipjack, water or oil, and dolphin-safe or MSC certified—it can be a complex task to select even a single can.

Almost all packaged tuna is wild-caught. But 0.1% of the tuna we eat is raised on a fishing farm. Although farming fish doesn’t kill the species, farming an endangered tuna increases wild fishing demand, ultimately harming that species chance of survival.

Different certifications are used on tuna labels, such as the sustainable fisheries partnership and dolphin-safe labels, but these can be difficult to find and decipher. Tuna labels also don’t include certification guidelines, which causes more confusion as to which labels are better than others.

In addition, these certifications are developed by third parties whose goal is profit, not sustainability. Since selecting the sustainable choice is entirely on the consumer, here’s the top three things you need to know to avoid any ‘fishy’ labels.


Catching methods, fish species, and fishing location all determine the environmental impact of your tuna purchase.

1. Pick pole-and-line or Purse Seine fishing methods.

The most important thing to know when selecting sustainable tuna is exactly how the fish is caught. There are three main types of fishing methods: longline, Purse Seine, and pole-caught (or pole-and-line).

Commercial methods of tuna fishing
Image credit: Oceans, 2021

Longline fishing accounts for approximately 10% of all tuna caught and is an easier way to bait the deeper water tuna such as albacore, bluefin, and yellowfin. Longline has an alarming 20% bycatch rate. The term bycatch is designated when the sheer amount of hooks in the water accidentally harms other fish, sometimes killing endangered species like sea turtles and killer whales.

Purse Seine is the most common fishing method, catching two-thirds of the world’s tuna. Purse Seine commercial boats utilize a circular net that surrounds entire schools of fish. Bycatch rates in this fishing method comprise less than 1% of the total catch. But some vessels use fish aggregating devices, or FADs, which draw fish closer to the surface, therefore increasing the bycatch even more. If purchasing Purse Seine tuna, be sure to look for ‘FAD-free’ on the label.

Only 8% of tuna are caught by the pole-and-line, or pole-caught, method — which uses fishing poles to catch the fish one-by-one. Pole-and-line fishing has almost no bycatch which is great news for the sea turtles. But its ships burn through the most fuel out of any vessel because it’s the most time-consuming catching method.

2. Basically, skip everything but the skipjack.

The four main varieties of tuna are all overfished, although some do have more stable populations.

The four most consumed species of tuna
Image credit: The Spruce

Bluefin tuna are critically endangered, exploited, and nearing extinction. Bluefin is so overfished that its populations cannot reproduce fast enough to replace themselves. Even though some bluefin is farmed — Japan farms over 30% of its bluefin — the popularity of the fish type can mean an increase in wild-caught, too. This is why consuming bluefin tuna should be avoided entirely.

Yellowfin, which accounts for 28% of all tuna caught, is also at risk. Increasingly, caught yellowfin tuna are becoming smaller in size — and, the fish are living shorter lives and reproducing less and less — destabilizing the population at large. And because only one method of catching them, pole-caught, can even be considered a more sustainable choice, this fish should be avoided altogether.

Almost one-third of all canned tuna is actually albacore. This tuna’s rapid rise in popularity has increased overfishing and longline catching methods, which are harmful to endangered marine species like sea turtles and killer whales. So, when choosing this fish, it’s important to look for ‘pole-caught’ on the label.

Lastly, skipjack, often described as ‘chunk light’ or ‘light meat,’ accounts for over 70% of all canned tuna. Skipjack is plentiful, reproduces rapidly, and is the most sustainable choice in the tuna aisle.


3. Yes, regulations really make a difference.

A final thing to consider when purchasing tuna is location. Illegal fishing is common within the tuna industry, and only some countries pass laws and use monitoring technology to make sure regulations are followed. For example, President Obama increased electronic tuna monitoring in the Gulf of Mexico, reducing bycatch and protecting bluefin breeding areas. Although the Trump Administration rolled back these regulations, President Biden will likely increase protections for wild-caught tuna.

Global Fishing Watch, a Google platform, uses real-time data to track commercial fishing vessels and fight unsustainable fishing methods.

To locate the most protected marine areas, explore their interactive fishing map. The map can also pinpoint overfished and illegal catch locations.


Overall, there are many environmental concerns with tuna, from killing sea turtles and killer whales to potentially annihilating entire marine species.

Image credit: Nervous Shark

But it’s important to note that the tuna industry generates up to $40 billion annually for the global economy and supports over 260 million fishers worldwide. Countries such as Indonesia and Japan rely on tuna fishing for their economies, catching 568,170 and 369,696 metric tons respectively.

Eating less tuna, or deciding to not eat it at all, is certainly a sustainable choice. But, this personal activism does not pressure fishing companies to change their habits or garner enough attention for governments to take notice. Eating tuna can be done with the environment in mind while supporting fishers and promoting sustainable catching. Choosing tuna with stable stocks, such as skipjack, and looking for environmentally sound catch methods, such as FAD-free purse seine or pole-and-line, can increase the demand for sustainable fishing altogether.

By fishing for just the right tuna at your own supermarket, you’re raising awareness for the sustainable tuna industry. This small but important step can save depleted stocks, expand safe catch methods, and help change perceptions of the world’s most consumed fish.

Phil Gurley


May 9, 2021, Filed Under: Climate

Save the planet, go vegan

The Earth will thank you!

In March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic shattered normalcy around the globe—a tragic reminder of the fragility of the global economic system and a dark illustration of the deep connection between human health and our environment. As months turned into a year of stay-at-home orders amidst high levels of unemployment and food insecurity, anxiety increased and angst over the future reached an all-time high. 

Despite the feeling of helplessness that increased during our ‘new normal,’ there is always a reason for hope, even during the darkest hour.

When government across all levels failed to meet the needs of the majority of its population, mutual aid organizations, in the tradition of the Black Panther Party and the Young Lord’s projects of survival, swiftly mobilized to fulfill the government’s role.

Just as the Black Panther Party established a community free breakfast program to feed young Black children so that they would be nourished and sustained to participate in the revolution, mutual aid organizations not only met the needs of their communities, they organized protests, banner drops, marches, and encampments and to demand action on housing, racial justice, and the climate crisis. 

Sunrise Movement (2021)

The unease that lingers as developed nations increase vaccine disruption while developed nations’ cases and deaths continue to swell is not new. That creeping feeling of hopelessness is reminiscent of “climate anxiety”— the mental condition caused by the existential threat of the climate crisis, felt most deeply by young people. 

As the battle to waive patent rights to the COVID-19 vaccine continues, there still may be light at the end of a devastating year and a half, and although not even the global shutdown caused a significant decrease in greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE), there are ways in which individuals can feel empowered every day to take action, even against the greatest threat to human life: the climate crisis.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC,) the agriculture, forest, and land-use sector is responsible for a quarter of all greenhouse gas emissions in the world, more than the transportation, building, energy, and ‘general industries’ and nearly tied with electricity.  

Because the lionshare of emissions within the food sector is caused by meat and dairy production, going vegan is one of the most impactful lifestyle changes that you can make to curb climate change. 

Researchers at Oxford University found that switching to a vegan diet reduces an individual’s carbon footprint from food by up to 73%. Without major dietary shifts and agricultural reform, multiple studies have concluded that it will be impossible to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement to mitigate global temperatures “well below” 2◦C.

Leading international bodies, including the IPCC and UN Environmental Programme (UNEP) and other experts have long advocated for widespread dietary shifts to curb the impacts of climate change, particularly among developed nations. 

Ilmi Granoff from the Overseas Development Institute, a leading think tank in the UK, has advocated that the “fastest way to address climate change would be to dramatically reduce the amount of meat people eat.”

The burden to reduce meat consumption falls most heavily on the US; the average American consumes around 220 pounds of red meat and poultry per year and has been projected to eat as much as 10 ounces of meat and poultry per day—4.5 ounces more than the recommended amount.

Data source: Implications of Future US Diet Scenarios on Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Center for Sustainable Systems (University of Michigan)

A 2020 study from the University of Michigan found that if Americans cut their consumption of animal-based foods by 50% (including a 90% cut to their consumption of beef), it could reduce diet-related US GHGE by 51%. In addition,

a recent report by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF,) the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), EAT and Climate Focus found that including food systems in signatories’ Paris Agreement carbon goals could reduce emissions by as much as 12.5 Gt CO2e—the equivalent of taking 2.7 billion cars off the road—and could deliver up to 20% of emission reductions needed.  

The GHGE released from both meat and dairy production—methane, and nitrous oxide—are even more potent than those from the transportation or energy sectors and have 56 times and 280 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide. Yet, because methane remains in the atmosphere for a significantly shorter amount of time than carbon dioxide, reducing methane emissions today from the agriculture industry can produce immediate results. 

The EAT-Lancet Commission confirms that global food and agricultural production are the top drivers of deforestation, land conversion, biodiversity loss, topsoil loss, depletion of freshwater resources, and pollution of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. The food system, particularly meat and dairy production, is responsible for nearly half (40%) of global land and the majority (70%) of freshwater use. 

Source:  Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (2017)

The extractive industries that produce meat and dairy products in the US and abroad produce more GHGE than the entire country of Germany, and more than top oil producers.

By refusing to support these industries (which primarily employee people of color and immigrants in some of the US’ most dangerous jobs, even before the pandemic) you are joining a growing movement of individuals across the country and the world that are boycotting meat and dairy products and holding these businesses accountable for their role in the climate crisis.

The Coalition of Immokalee Workers continue to boycott Wendy’s, one of the only fast food chains that has not meet their demands

Boycotts have served as a powerful strategy throughout history, particularly in the fight for racial and labor justice in the US.

Most famously, the Montgomery bus boycott—the 381-day mass protest against the bus system of Montgomery, Alabama by civil rights activists and their supporters—led to a 1956 US Supreme Court decision that ruled that Montgomery’s bus segregation laws were unconstitutional. 

More recently, the Coalition for Immokalee Workers, a human rights organization led by farmers in Florida, forced fast-food chains like Taco Bell, McDonald’s, and Burger King to meet their demands to improve wages for tomato pickers in their supply chains after a series of national farmworker boycott of those restaurants.

These successful movements show the power of targeted boycotts in forcing industries to shift to more sustainable practices or transition from producing animal products altogether.

Alongside a shift to a primarily plant-based diet, you can make your contribution even more impactful by also lobbying Congress (find your legislators here,) to ask that they support the Green New Deal and expand the scope of President Biden’s Paris Agreement target carbon emissions plan to include a reduction in factory farming and meat production/consumption.

Food is a human right that we should all enjoy—incorporating and prioritizing a plant-based diet over a meat and dairy heavy diet is one step that anyone can take to ensure that folks around the world will be able to enjoy healthy, culturally apprioate, delicious food (and a healthy planet) for years to come.

—

Brand new to veganism?

The revolution is more fun in groups; check out environmental organizations like Extinction Rebellion that are advocating for immediate action on climate change and an end to animal production and consumption.

Don’t forget, when shifting your diet, you can start small with Meatless Mondays and slowly transition to removing more animal products—use these startup guides to get inspired!

May 9, 2021, Filed Under: Climate

Action Items for Rio Grande Access

By Claudia Canfield, submitted to the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance

The 2020 water delivery crisis began when farmers in Chihuahua, Mexico began protesting the water deliveries Mexico’s National Water Commission was making from the Río Conchos to the Rio Grande in compliance with the 1944 water treaty that governs the US and Mexico’s shared water resources. At one point, the protesters took control of a key dam in Chihuahua and stopped the water deliveries. This crisis caused a great deal of uncertainty and anxiety for South Texas farmers and ranchers who rely on Mexico’s water deliveries to the Rio Grande to supply water they use to irrigate their crops and support their livestock through the hottest months of the year. The many weeks South Texas spent at various levels of elevated drought conditions exacerbated the uncertainty and left many farmers and ranchers feeling helpless during this crisis.

Rio Grande | American Rivers
The Rio Grande Basin drains a vast, binational area provides irrigation water to farmers in Texas’ Rio Grande Valle and northern Mexico.

If this story seems like history is repeating itself, that’s because it is. The water delivery crisis of 2000 was the first time Mexico failed to meet two consecutive water delivery cycles. In fact, this problem was so contentious it required a meeting between US President George W. Bush and Mexican President Vicente Fox for the two countries to reach a resolution. The US-Mexico International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) agreement the two presidents helped facilitate in 2001 set out the terms for Mexico to repay the water it owed the US and committed both countries to working together to identify opportunities for cooperation and water conservation in the Rio Grande Basin. The 2003 water conservation plan proposed infrastructure modernization projects that saved approximately 321,023 acre-feet of water annually, and the delivery cycles from 2000-2010 ended without deficit. This feat would not have been possible without the North American Development Bank (NADB) providing $40 million to fully fund the projects.

While we can’t undo the damage of last summer’s crisis, what can be done to stop this cycle and prevent future water crises?

Thankfully, the IBWC agreement that established how the 2020 water debt would be paid also created the Rio Grande Hydrology Work Group. This task force has until December 2023 to develop a plan for implementing water conservation projects that will improve reliability and predictability of Mexico’s water deliveries to the Rio Grande. An area with large potential water savings is irrigation infrastructure. Estimates indicate up to 90% of the water used in the Río Conchos Basin is used for irrigation, and an analysis of the Río Salado, another Rio Grande tributary, indicates it is under similar stress from irrigation. Projects to improve irrigation efficiency for farmers in Mexico include replacing outdated infrastructure, installing automatic timers, fitting pumps with sensors that detect leaks or excessive use, and introducing drip irrigation where possible. These efforts will vastly improve irrigation efficiency for Mexican farmers, and therefore ensure more water is available for Mexico’s water deliveries to the US. Greater water efficiency for Mexican farmers means more reliable water access for South Texas farmers and ranchers.

Greater irrigation efficiency can make low water levels in Chihuahuan reservoirs (above) and in the Rio Grande (below) a thing of the past.

The one outstanding piece of the puzzle is NADB funding; the US Congress has not yet allocated the funds that would ensure NADB is able to fully support the water conservation projects the Rio Grande Hydrology Work Group will propose in the next two years. This is where the voices of South Texas farmers and ranchers can make a big difference. 

Here are three ways you can help secure reliable access to Rio Grande water for your farm or ranch:

Action Item 1: Email and Call Congress

(If you’re not sure who your representative is, click here.)

Congressional Districts: 

  • District 15: Vicente Gonzalez, click here to email, call (202) 225-2531
  • District 23: Tony Gonzales, click here to email, call (202) 225-4511
  • District 28: Henry Cuellar, click here to email, call (202) 225-1640 
  • District 34: Filemon Vela, click here to email, call (202) 225-9901

Senators:

  • John Cornyn, click here to email, call (202) 224-2934
  • Ted Cruz, click here to email, call (202) 224-5922

Sample email:

Dear [Representative/Senator name],

My name is [name] and I live in [town or county name], Texas. I’m emailing to urge you to support legislation that ensures the North American Development Bank is able to fully fund water conservation projects proposed by the US-Mexico International Boundary and Water Commission’s Rio Grande Hydrology Work Group.

[Include several sentences here explaining how your farm or ranch operations were impacted by the water delivery crisis. Whether you lost crops or had to sell livestock because the irrigation water ran out, be as specific and detailed as possible. Personal stories from constituents can have a huge impact on how representatives vote.]

In 2003, the IBWC proposed infrastructure projects to conserve water and prevent water deficits. These projects were successful because they received full funding from the North American Development Bank. I am asking you to ensure the water conservation projects are fully funded this time as well; farmers, ranchers, and the agriculture sector in your district are counting on you.

Sincerely,

[Sign with your full name and phone number]  

Sample phone message:

“Hello, my name is [name] and I live in [name of town or county], Texas. I’m calling to ask [Representative/Senator name] to support legislation that will ensure the North American Development Bank is able to fully fund water conservation projects proposed by the US-Mexico International Boundary and Water Commission’s Rio Grande Hydrology Work Group.

[Explain that you are a farmer/rancher, and you depend on Rio Grande water to support your crops/livestock. Personal details will stand out and the staffer you are speaking with will be more likely to remember your conversation.]

Will [Representative/Senator name] publicly announce his support for this legislation?

[Make sure to thank the staffer for their time before hanging up.]

Action Item 2: Attend the Lower Rio Grande Citizens Forum

The next meeting will be held July 28, 2021, 3:00 – 5:00 PM CDT via webinar. Please contact Lori Kuczmanski at lori.kuczmanski@ibwc.gov or (915) 494-6027 for more information. This will be an excellent opportunity to hear updates on the Rio Grande Hydrology Work Group, ask questions about the project development process, and give your input on the agenda items.

Action Item 3: Share this page with other South Texas farmers and ranchers! 

We need as many people as possible to join together in support of the Rio Grande Hydrology Work Group; our access to the Rio Grande is on the line.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Page 2
  • Page 3
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Legacy Page
  • The Paso del Norte Air Basin: opportunity and reward in a chronically polluted region
  • Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon & the Role of Carbon Markets
  • Four Strategies to Advance Equitable Climate Finance in the Developing World
  • Tourism: A Double-Edged Sword for Coral Reef Conservation

Categories

  • Air Pollution
  • Climate
  • Forests
  • Lead Story
  • Oceans/Fisheries
  • Uncategorized
  • Wildlife

UT Home | Emergency Information | Site Policies | Web Accessibility | Web Privacy | Adobe Reader

© The University of Texas at Austin 2025