09/03/2016

Women Are The Ones Fighting The Tough Environmental Battles Around The World

ThinkProgress - Marlene Cimons*


Three women, three stories.
In Papua New Guinea, the Carteret islands are drowning in the rising sea. The people who live there traditionally have relied on taro for food, but the plant has become increasingly difficult to grow as salt water floods the fields. "Our shorelines are eroding so fast, and there are frequent storm surges," says Ursula Rakova via Global Greengrants Fund, an international environment fund that supports grassroots environmental actions. "The rising sea levels have gotten so bad that one of the islands is disappearing really fast…We can't hold back the sea. It will do its part. It's already doing its part. It's displacing us."
In response, Rakova initiated a process that relocated 86 people — comprising seven families — to higher ground on the mainland, in Bougainville, on four parcels of land donated by the Catholic Church. But the elders don't want to leave the island. So Rakova and others from the community are finding ways to grow crops in their new location and bring it back to those still living on the atoll.
* * *
Her name is Aleta Baun, but they call her "Mama" Aleta. She lives on Indonesia's Timor Island, where the forests and the mountains are rich in natural resources, including oil, gas, gold and marble. For years, mining companies had taken the marble without consent, polluting rivers, destroying forests, and eroding the very identity of the community.
Finally, when they tried to plunder Mutis Mountain, which lies at the intersection of the island's major rivers, which supply water to the indigenous Mollo people, Mama Aleta decided enough was enough.
With the tribal elders' approval, she organized more than 150 women in the region to sit at the mine's entrance with their looms. They stayed, peacefully weaving their traditional tapestries, blocking entry. During the year-long protest, their men took on the domestic chores, including cooking, cleaning and caring for the children. The youngsters served as "runners" and brought the women food from home.
Ultimately, the miners gave up and left.
"The philosophy of our people is that we regard the Earth as our human body," she explains in a video provided by Global Greengrants, which is supporting Mama Aleta's campaign. "That stone is our bone. Water is our blood. Land is our flesh and forest is our hair. If one of them is taken away, we are paralyzed."
* * *
Sasolburg, in South Africa's Vaal Triangle, home to Caroline Npaotane, is a city long dominated by the large petrochemical company Sasol. It is an economic mainstay for the town, supporting many facets of its infrastructure. Yet it also is polluter that emits carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and benzene, among others — a noxious stew that has caused widespread health problems for residents who live nearby, including Npaotane's daughter. When her child began suffering repeated nosebleeds and breathing issues, Npaotane became an activist, with Global Greengrants support, leading a successful campaign to enact new air quality standards.
"You feel intimidated, because you're just a community member,'' she told Parliament when testifying in favor of the new law. "You're not a doctor or a scientist. But you don't need to be a doctor or scientist to know when you know your kids are suffering."
* * *
Ursula Rakova, left. CREDIT: Global Greengrants Fund
Three women, three stories. But these three represent thousands of other women globally who are engaged in local battles against climate change and other environmental conflicts, often at significant personal risk and with great courage. These women understand that the struggle for environmental justice also is a fight for gender equality, land rights, economic and cultural rights, and food security, among other things, and that local activism can be a critical portal to the political process and policy decision-making.
It seems fitting to recognize them on International Women's Day.
"Climate change is a women's issue largely because the current world economic framework puts women at a disadvantage," says Osprey Orielle Lake, co-founder and executive director of the Women's Earth and Climate Action Network (WECAN), an international climate justice-based organization that involves women in sustainability issues, social and economic justice and policy advocacy. "There is a clear link between poverty and who gets impacted by climate change."
"Women make up the greatest percentage of the world's poor," she adds. "Indigenous women and those in developing countries have a direct reliance on nature, so when we have droughts, and heat waves and flooding, this increases the stress on millions of women world-wide, often due to gender roles — the responsibility to provide food, water and firewood for their families."
Climate change is a women's issue largely because the current world economic framework puts women at a disadvantage.
These women don't necessarily self-identify as feminists or activists; rather, they are fighting for the survival of their communities and their people, and to preserve their heritage. They may not be as high-profile as other women who speak out and work visibly in the climate change policy movement, but they are no less important in effecting change.
"When I hear about grass roots climate activism, it reminds me of the Civil Rights movement," says Katharine Hayhoe, a Canadian climate scientist who directs the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University. "We had Martin Luther King Jr. who gave inspirational speeches — and we had Rosa Parks. We need both. We need the Martin Luther Kings to give us the vision, the overall picture. And we need the Rosa Parks of the world to refuse to give up their seat on the bus."
Hayhoe, an evangelical Christian who often speaks about the realities of climate change to Christian groups, stresses that climate change is an issue that affects women disproportionately, particularly at the local level, often in matters related to food, water and health. "How climate change affects us depends on the ways we are vulnerable, which are specific to the location where we live," she says. "We see a large number of engaged women on the local scale, whether it's in Africa, the Philippines — or Texas."
Aleta Baun, center.
Aleta Baun, center. CREDIT: Goldman Environmental Prize

Mama Aleta's community, for example, had fought the miners for decades, unsuccessfully. "The traditional ways of defending their land were not working," says Ursula Miniszewski, Global Greengrants' gender and environment officer. "They had marches. They tried negotiating with the companies, but the companies weren't interested in engaging with the communities at all."
As it always has been for those involved in controversial movements, her activism put her in constant danger. "Mama Aleta was targeted — she was attacked with a machete, but escaped," Miniszewski says. "None of this deterred her. She is unrelenting."
Not everyone, however, has been so fortunate. Last week, Berta Cáceres, a Honduran woman who organized the indigenous Lenca people in a successful grassroots battle against construction of the Agua Zarca Dam — and winner of last year's prestigious Goldman Environmental Prize — was murdered by unknown assassins who snuck into her home after she had fallen asleep.
Berta Caceres at the banks of the Gualcarque River in the Rio Blanco region of western Honduras where she, COPINH (the Council of Popular and Indigenous Organizations of Honduras) and the people of Rio Blanco have maintained a two year struggle to halt construction on the Agua Zarca Hydroelectric project, that poses grave threats to local environment, river and indigenous Lenca people from the region.
Berta Caceres at the banks of the Gualcarque River in the Rio Blanco region of western Honduras where she, COPINH (the Council of Popular and Indigenous Organizations of Honduras) and the people of Rio Blanco have maintained a two year struggle to halt construction on the Agua Zarca Hydroelectric project, that poses grave threats to local environment, river and indigenous Lenca people from the region. CREDIT: Goldman Environmental Prize
The dam project she opposed would have cut off the water supply, as well as access to food and medicine, to hundreds of Lenca people, effectively ending their ability to sustainably manage and live off of their land. In 2013, she initiated a road blockade to prevent access to the dam site which lasted more than a year and ultimately ended the dam company's construction efforts. One of her colleagues was killed during the protest, and she had been the recipient of countless death threats.
"I have an advantage in regards to other women in the fight. I come from women, my mother, my grandmother, very revolutionary, feisty," she said in a Global Greengrants audio interview. "My children were raised with that…. For them, it is very important, the environmental cause…" She also spoke poignantly of the intimidation, calling it an affront "to my physical integrity, emotional integrity…and to the organization I work for."
Undaunted by her own narrow escape from death, Indonesia's Mama Aleta fights on. She now is working with communities across West Timor to map their traditional forests in order to protect their indigenous territorial rights from future development, according to the Goldman Environmental Foundation, which awarded her its prize in 2013. She also is seeking economic opportunities for the villagers through sustainable farming, and through initiatives that can produce income from weaving and other activities.
It is not unusual for women in these communities to develop approaches that are unique to the problems within their own communities. "I visited a women's farming collective in Tanzania, and they talked about how weather changes were messing with their crop rotation, and their seasonal calendar," Miniszewski says. "They got together with another women's collective nearby to exchange information, and decided to try alternative ways of food storage."
Worried that their food sources would disappear, they learned to preserve their food through drying. "This was something they hadn't had to do before," says Miniszewski. "They didn't have access to information about climate change, or even call it climate change. It was more 'OK, we're going to adjust and adapt to this.' There are women all over the world who are adjusting and adapting on a daily basis."
Caroline Npaotane.
Caroline Npaotane. CREDIT: Global Greengrants Fund
Elsewhere in Africa, WoMin (African Women United Against Destructive Resource Extraction), has aligned itself with more than 60 organizations committed to bringing a gender perspective to issues related to fossil fuel extraction and climate change, and is working in nine countries to mobilize women to challenge coal development and promote alternatives. This past week, they have been holding a women's rights activist "building" school in Johannesburg to teach women from seven African countries about women-led campaigns against coal extraction, as well as issues related to energy and climate justice.
"The climate justice question, linked to the fight against fossil fuels and for energy justice, is a critical one for African women," says Samantha Hargreaves, the director of WoMin. "This is because they bear the immediate impacts of fossil fuels extraction and combustion on land and water, the major communal resources from which women create livelihoods for families and communities."
In the Democratic Republic of Congo, WECAN, in collaboration with SAFECO (Synergy of Association of Women in Congo), has been training Pygmy women of the Itombwe forest (a rainforest in the Congo Basin) since 2014 to create conservation projects and reforest land that has been damaged as a result of clear cutting.
"In the last six months, they have planted over 7,000 trees," Lake says. "The goal is to plant 20,000 trees." WECAN, which is providing funding for the trees, nurseries and training, also has supplied small, hand-held solar-powered light devices "to replace the need for cutting trees for light," Lake says, adding:
These women are thrilled. The pygmy women have become empowered. They're gone from seeing no way out of their poverty to planting these trees, which, among other things, are providing fruit – and it's been revitalizing and renewing for them.
Also, today in Puyo, Ecuador, women climate leaders organized by WECAN and Amazon Watch, will stand with the Sápara and Kichwa indigenous peoples of the Ecuadorian Amazon to protest the government's decision to sign a contract with the Chinese oil corporation Andes Petroleum. The agreement gives the company rights for oil exploration and extraction in two areas that overlap the traditional lands of the Sápara and Kichwa. The people there — led by local women — have been fighting for decades to preserve their land.
"We thought it was perfect on International Women's Day to uplift these brave women who literally put their bodies on the line to protect these rainforests," Lake says.
The protestors have asked citizens around the world to support their efforts by signing a petition to the government of Ecuador.
On International Women's Day last year, Global Greengrants introduced a resource for philanthropies and other organizations to understand the importance of local environmental activism on the part of women which includes case studies and practical tips.
Thus, despite disproportionate suffering from the impacts of climate change, as well as life-threatening attacks for their environmental activism, these women are at the forefront of global efforts to combat the effects of global warming and environmental destruction. "They are on the frontlines trying to heal our world," Lake says. "So many of the women we work with will tell you: 'We are not the victims. We are the solutions.'"

*Marlene Cimons is a freelance writer who specializes in science, health and the environment.

Links

What's the Answer to Climate Change?

The AtlanticRobinson Meyer

It's not enough to let the market handle it or depend on geo-engineering.

There is one convenient thing about climate change: The problem of global warming poses so many threats, and emerges from so many causes, that there's not one single solution for it.
This is convenient because it means you can work on a lot of different angles and still help the underlying problem. If every American stopped eating meat tomorrow, the situation would immediately begin to improve but it wouldn't be solved; ditto if every coal plant worldwide was shut down tomorrow. Even in that crazy-go-nuts mitigation scenario, we'd immediately be a lot better off, but there would still be work to do.
So thinking about climate change requires a two-mindedness among those who want to pitch in to work against it—or who just want to be educated voters on their city, country, or planet. On the one hand, we have reached the point where climate change will arrive regardless of what we do. Climate change is vast, hopeless, horrifying, anxiety-inducing, and imagination-staggering. On the other, it's a challenge without parallel in human history: a vast, fascinating, thrilling, inspiring, mind-bending opportunity.
Many revere the Enlightenment thinkers for turning the high ideals of equality and justice into concrete political institutions (even as they and their contemporaries invented race and justified chattel slavery). But if converting ideals into institutions is an admirable challenge, don't worry: Now we have to do it too. On a global scale. Inventing as we go. No biggie.
How big is the problem? Here is the basic climate-change mechanism: Cars, trucks, planes, power plants, factories, and farming techniques release certain gases into the atmosphere; these gases build up over time and trap more heat
than other kinds of gases would; this extra warmth forces the climate—the sum of weather everywhere—to change, making it more energetic (since heat is just energy) and wily and destructive.
Now, some scientists disagree over how bad climate change has already gotten, and some claim that pre-2100 global warming will be much worse than predicated, but neither of those disagreements are about the general principle—and the general principle is what matters when it comes to addressing climate change with policy.
So that's the problem. How might we solve it?

ANSWER
Climate change is finally getting solved. Last year, 189 nations adopted the Paris Agreement, the first treaty to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions that includes not only the rich West but the rapidly industrializing East (namely China and India). It's not perfect, but it will send a "a critical message to the global marketplace," to quote Secretary of State John Kerry, that it's time to pull out long-term investment in fossil fuel companies.

QUESTION
That first part is unmistakably true: We are living the first hopeful years for climate change in memory. But maybe the Paris Agreement only seems optimistic when it's compared to the recent past, when the world—and especially the United States—did almost nothing to stop the warming atmosphere. Examine the details of this recent progress and it still looks pretty paltry.
The Paris Agreement talks an ambitious game, but it has no mechanism to force anyone to do anything. And given the fragility of the domestic politics here in America, where the EPA's signature climate-change regulation was just stopped, what's to keep the United States from reneging on its larger Paris promise? And if the United States backs out, won't China and India follow?

ANSWER
But it doesn't even matter if the United States fulfills its plan, though. The cost of clean power is plunging. Soon, solar could be as cheap or cheaper than natural gas—it already is in some places.

QUESTION
Sure, but there's no rule preventing clean power and dirty fossil fuels from co-existing. Check the situation in Texas, where wind generated more than 10 percent of the energy mix last year—but coal constituted 36 percent. And even when the news on climate seems wholly good, it somewhat relies on White House-supported policies. For instance, lots of Americans are building rooftop solar panels on their houses with the help of the recently extended federal solar-tax credit. Yet Nevada once had a friendly solar policy too—until earlier this year, when it reversed them and literally made solar taxes retroactive.
Will future administrations help bring clean energy into the world as much as the current one has? Some of the cost reductions in solar and wind power
have come from government-research funding, after all. If the United States stops implementing its climate policies, will the cost of solar and wind creep up again?

ANSWER
The problem isn't just climate change—it's ceaseless growth. If people ever want to live in symbiosis with the environment, they have to kick our 200-year addiction to growth and also probably capitalism. In the short term, they'll also have to cut back steeply to keep places like Bangladesh from drowning.

QUESTION
Some (but not all) environmentalists are beginning to argue a line like this. It's a line with little partisan shading, at least here in the U.S.: Neither Democrats nor Republicans support contracting the economy. It's also a view with many advocates but without a consistent policy. You can find de-growthism in many forms: Naomi Klein advocates for a kind of global socialism, while others imply that drastic, short-term cuts are the only way will curtail carbon emissions fast enough.
In today's populist political climate, are such cuts possible—even on the multi-decade level? Will Americans be able to live with the consequences of such cuts, much less accept or sustain them?
Even anti-growth advocates are honest about their fall-out: "Not only will our standards of living almost certainly drop, but it's likely that the very quality of our society—equality, safety, and trust—will decline, too," writes Daniel Immerwahr, in an article calling for the abandonment of growth. In a country with both entrenched, institutional racism and a nuclear-armed military, who will suffer most from that decline?

ANSWER
The market will solve this problem, just like it solved expensive air travel, pre-Internet communication, and the sleeveless blanket.
QUESTION
As Republicans try to criticize climate regulation while accepting climate science, they turn to some variant of this line. I think there are two knocks against it—one more facile than the other.
The first is that, you know, if private industry was going to step up and address the climate crisis, it maybe should have done it already. Greenland's ice sheet is sliding toward the sea, and Miami Beach is a lost cause: Where is the market?
But worse, I think, is that this is more or less the tack that governments have chosen to take. Governments have incentivized some pathways to green energy more than others, but the world's approach is to move some assets around—to send that "critical message to the global marketplace"—and then tell business to figure the rest out. Is that process working fast enough? Should the residents of small Pacific islands, vulnerable to sea-level rise, be satisfied with the progress of the markets?
Would the market move faster if it didn't get these signals? The evidence so far, by the way, seems to prove the opposite. When the Obama administration set new fuel-efficiency standards for cars in 2012, manufacturers welcomed the move. A single, shared standard let all companies compete on the same framework and gave them investment targets to plan on. Would they have made the same improvements—which have resulted in greenhouse-gas savings equal to the Clean Power Plan—if they weren't pressed?

ANSWER
We shouldn't even worry about these questions now. Geo-engineering will fix this for us: Using negative emissions technologies, we'll suck carbon out of the atmosphere; and until we perfect that technique, we'll depress global temperatures by seeding the atmosphere with sulfate aerosols.
QUESTION
Let's look at sulfates first: They're chemicals that would depress global temperatures for about 10 years and, in the meantime, reflect enough sunlight away to stave off some warming. Who should get to decide it's time to release them? How should we geo-engineer the planet in ways that are democratic? Which percentage of countries should get to decide how weather in all countries works? What if some countries declare that they can never support such a technology? Oliver Morton, an Economist editor who wrote a book on geo-engineering, has told The Atlantic that he worries far more about politics than the techniques themselves:
What I really worry about with geoengineering is that conflict over its use will lead to a greater conflict that leads to a nuclear war […] because we don't even know if anyone's going to try geoengineering, but we know the wherewithal to have a nuclear war is out there in the world already.
And what about carbon-scrubbing the troposphere? In some ways, it's easier than sulfate deployment, as more countries and companies might get behind returning the atmosphere to pre-industrial levels. But the most promising method—carbon capture and storage—isn't ready for industrial deployment yet. How much should we risk the health of the planet for an unproven commercial technique?
Indeed, an Oxford University study found that the most efficient way to remove carbon from the atmosphere in the next 50 years isn't some fancy technology. It's trees.

* * * 
This is only a tour of some of the solutions to climate change floating around. None is both adequate and likely. So maybe it's better to think in terms of management: How can the crisis be slowed, halted, and reversed as soon as possible? And how can you use your time and attention to help humanity along that path?
What's the role of individuals in fighting climate change? Should they change their own routines to reduce their emissions, cutting red meat and dairy—however small those consequent savings may be—or is that kind of activism meaningless compared to political involvement?
"Growth" is now a mandate for American politicians, even as the country's natural rate of growth seems to be slowing. But is the improvement of quality-of-life for most people best measured through gross domestic product? As the climate warms, should we find aims other than constant growth in order to sustain a healthy society and livable planet?
What kind of society and democratic government will be best positioned to handle resource scarcity and the sequential emergencies associated with the now-inevitable consequences of climate change? How can we bring about that society? What kind of global governance will be needed?
And most important of all: Can the world both manage climate change and avoid its worst cataclysms, like hideous famines, mass migrations, surveillance-powered authoritarians, and World War III?

How Climate Change Killed The Dinosaurs' Underwater Cousins

The Conversation

The last ichthyosaurs. Andrey Atuchin, Author provided

Imagine dolphins disappearing from the world's oceans as a result of prolonged climate change and slower evolution. As shocking and unlikely as such an event might be, it happened in the past to a group of marine animals: the ichthyosaurs.
These "fish-reptiles" were an iconic group of marine predators from the dinosaur era – and the ichthyosaurs underwent the most profound modifications to become fast, efficient swimmers. They evolved a shark-like body shape, their limbs transformed into muscular paddles, and they had some of the largest eyes in the entire animal kingdom, presumably to seek out and hunt prey in deep or turbid marine settings. About a hundred ichthyosaur species are currently known, covering a 157m-year reign in the ancient oceans that ended around 90m years ago.
But ichthyosaurs mysteriously met their demise long before the mass extinction of 66m years ago that claimed the lives of non-avian dinosaurs, ammonites and a series of other ancient creatures.
Two theories have previously been put forward to explain the out-of-the-blue extinction of the ichthyosaurs. First, increased competition from other marine predators, especially new, fast-moving and fast-reproducing fish. Second, that their food disappeared. The last ichthyosaurs were thought to rely only on one type of food – small belemnite cephalopods. And so when these underwent a partial extinction about 94m years ago, ichthyosaurs soon followed.

Diversity question
These two theories have one point in common. They are based on the idea that there wasn't enough diversity among ichthyosaurs for the group to respond to minor changes in competition and food. More diverse groups are more varied in their physical characteristics so can more easily survive changing circumstances and environments.
But we now know that the fossil record indicates the last ichthyosaurs actually were very diverse. To close this long-standing enigma, my colleagues and I at the University of Oxford studied ichthyosaur diversity during the last chapter of their history, which occurred during the Cretaceous period (145m to 66m years ago). We reconstructed the fluctuation in the number of ichthyosaur species and their feeding capabilities, as well as their evolutionary and extinction rates.
Ichthyosaur fossil. Zach Tirrell/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA




We found that ichthyosaurs were highly diversified in the Cretaceous, and that several species with distinct physical structures and ecological niches (ways of surviving in their environment) existed simultaneously. Some evidence even suggests that they had never been more diverse in the previous 120m years of their history.
But, at the same time, our analyses indicated that ichthyosaurs had never evolved more slowly. In fact, only a few novel species and body shapes evolved during this lenghty period. This possibly indicates that ichthyosaurs simply were well adapted to their Cretaceous environments and didn't need to evolve much further. The key point, however, is that the previous theories about ichthyosaur extinction can't explain this pattern of diversity.
We then looked at what we know was happening to the global environment by reviewing evidence of changes in things such as sea surface temperature and sea levels. And we found that increased ichthyosaur extinction rates coincided with higher sea level and sea temperature volatility (by how much they changed). This gave us the first evidence of global environment change driving ichthyosaur extinction. And this extinction happened in two phases, separated by about 5m to 6m years.

Global climate change
These events didn't happen in a void. A vast series of extinctions and accelerated evolutions in other marine groups took place precisely during the extinction of ichthyosaurs. These changes affected almost all of the marine ecosystems, from coral reefs to the homes of large predators.
On top of that, these events coincided with profound climatic changes: fast-moving continents, intense volcanism, ice-free poles and episodes of anoxia (absence of oxygen) on the sea floor. So the extinction of the ichthyosaurs appears to be part of a much larger event that was probably triggered by global environmental changes.
Our new work supports a growing body of evidence suggesting that a major, global series of events profoundly reorganised marine ecosystems at the beginning of the Late Cretaceous, about 94m to 100m years ago. This gave rise to the highly peculiar and geologically brief Late Cretaceous marine world. Not only did the ichthyosaurs disappear in the course of this change, but numerous lineages of bony fishes and sharks also evolved. We are currently expanding our research to many of these other marine groups, in order quantify these changes and their links with ancient global climate change.

Links