The mass coral bleaching event, the second in the past decade, comes amid relentlessly rising global sea temperatures.

—

At least 53 countries have been experiencing mass bleaching of coral reefs since early 2023 in response to rising ocean temperatures, scientists have confirmed. 

In a joint press release on Monday, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) and the International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI) – a partnership of 101 international nations and countries to perverse reefs around the world – confirmed that the world is undergoing its fourth global coral bleaching event, the second in the past ten years.

“From February 2023 to April 2024, significant coral bleaching has been documented in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres of each major ocean basin,” said Derek Manzello, coordinator of NOAA’s Coral Reef Watch (CRW). Among the 53 regions where coral bleaching has been confirmed so far are Florida, Eastern Tropical Pacific nations including Mexico, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Panama, and Colombia, and Australia. 

Rising Temperatures

The event is directly related to rising sea surface temperatures, which last month reached a new record high of 21.07C, the highest monthly value since records began.

Seas warmed last year in response to the return of El Niño, a weather pattern associated with the unusual warming of surface waters in the eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean. However, the trend has continued well into 2024, despite signs that El Niño is gradually weakening.

“We had seen El Niño conditions before, so we expected higher surface temperatures because the Pacific ocean releases heat. But what happened in 2023 was nothing close to 2016, the second-warmest year on record. It was beyond anything we expected and no climate models can reproduce what happened. And then 2024 starts, and it gets even warmer. We cannot explain these [trends] yet and it makes scientists that work on Earth resilience like myself very nervous,” Professor Johan Rockström, Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, told Earth.Org in a recent interview.

Disappearing Ecosystems

Coral reefs are extremely important ecosystems that exist in more than 100 countries and territories and support at least 25% of marine species; they are integral to sustaining Earth’s vast and interconnected web of marine biodiversity and provide ecosystem services valued up to $9.9 trillion annually. They are sometimes referred to as “rainforests of the sea” for their ability to act as carbon sinks by absorbing the excess carbon dioxide in the water. 

Unfortunately, reefs are disappearing at an alarming pace. According to the most recent report by the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network (GCRMN), the world has lost approximately 14% of corals since 2009. 

While coral bleaching can be a natural process that occurs due to rising oceans temperatures in the summer months or during natural weather phenomena such as El Niño, a rise in marine heatwaves linked to human activities has led to more frequent and larger bleaching events globally.

One of the best examples of coral bleaching is the Great Barrier Reef, the world’s largest and longest reef system located off the coast of Queensland, Australia; it covers about 350,000 square kilometres – an area that is larger than the UK and Ireland combined. The stunning coral reef system has already suffered six mass bleaching events in 1998, 2002, 2016, 2017, 2020, and 2024. The events in 2016 and 2017 were so severe that they led to the death of 50% of the iconic reef.

Aside from Australia, coral death has been particularly pronounced in regions such as South Asia, the Pacific, East Asia, the Western Indian Ocean, The Gulf, and Gulf of Oman.

More on the topic: Australia Confirms ‘Widespread’ Bleaching Event Across Great Barrier Reef, Blames Rising Ocean Temperatures

While a coral bleaching event does not automatically result in corals’ death, they increase these ecosystems’ vulnerability to marine disease and starvation, which could eventually lead to mortality. The longer corals are bleached under various stresses, the more difficult it will be for algae to return.

“As the world’s oceans continue to warm, coral bleaching is becoming more frequent and severe,” Manzello said. “When these events are sufficiently severe or prolonged, they can cause coral mortality, which can negatively impact the goods and services coral reefs provide that people depend on for their livelihoods.”

The latest data should be a wake-up call for countries and requires an immediate response on a global, regional, and local level, NOAA and ICRI said in Monday’s press release.

“We are on the frontlines of coral reef research, management, and restoration, and are actively and aggressively implementing the recommendations of the 2019 Interventions Report,” said Jennifer Koss, director of NOAA’s Coral Reef Conservation Program (CRCP).

Featured image: Underwater Earth / XL Catlin Seaview Survey / Christophe Bailhache..

• Instagram
• Twitter
• Facebook
• LinkedIn
• YouTube

The United States has long stood as a beacon of hope and inspiration for the world. This article provides a few suggestions on how the US can positively impact its burgeoning debt by addressing climate challenges and pursuing a more sustainable path.

—

A March 2024 blockbuster report by the US Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates America’s public debt to soar to $141.1 trillion by 2054, steadily climbing from the current $34 trillion, already equivalent to 99% of its GDP, to a daunting 166% of GDP. US Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell and a number of other top CEOs and university professors have already raised serious concerns.

On the climate front, award-winning Earth scientist and director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research Johan Rockström has warned that six of the nine planetary boundaries have been breached, pushing Earth beyond the safe zone. The scientific evidence of our planet’s peril is unequivocal, and time is running out to rescue it from intensive care. 

According to a 2021 article published in Frontiers of Medicine, the emergence of Covid-19 – which is estimated to have cost the US economy a staggering $14 trillion by 2023 – was partly to blame on climate change factors. 

Our leaders and the public at large must address two critical questions: How did we arrive here in the first place, and how do we move forward to fix it? 

How Did We Get Here?

Numerous factors have contributed to this precarious situation, including, among others, unsustainable lifestyles, relentless product upgrades driven by deceiving marketing tactics, and extractive technologies leading to heightened greenhouse gas emissions and environmental degradation. Our consumption and extensive choice-driven culture has fostered the proliferation of manufacturing production lines and innumerable service offerings, programmed obsolescence of products, and overflowing landfills, epitomized by the staggering increase in average American home size, partly fueled by a direct tax model that incentivizes the excess. Happiness has become synonymous with material possessions and wealth.

The current US debt has been influenced by wars in the Middle East, the 2008 housing crisis, the Covid-19 pandemic, and several other factors. Projected estimates are unclear on the impact of unexpected pandemics or other extreme natural events.

Our educational institutions burden students with prolonged academic journeys, excessive capital investments, and unnecessary infrastructure expansions, contributing to escalating student debt. However, quick-fix solutions to alleviate debt burdens only exacerbate public debt. Our healthcare system is flawed, with Medicare and private health insurance overwhelmed with a myriad of plan options, leading to administrative costs projected to account for about 30% of all healthcare costs. The list of evident problems goes on.

Fixing Debt And Climate While Ensuring Sustainable Growth

1. Shift to an Indirect Tax Model Catalyzes Clean Growth

Addressing our contemporary challenges requires bold and radical measures. Shifting from a direct tax model to an indirect tax model can directly influence purchasing behavior. 

The latter model should encompass five tax tiers, with environmentally unfriendly products taxed at the highest tier and eco-friendly products at the lowest. A similar model was implemented in India a few years ago, but it too warrants a revamped mission statement toward sustainability. 

Such models catalyze a green tech startup revolution, ensuring that environmental, social, and governance (ESG) initiatives are substantive rather than superficial. A direct tax model as a complement to the indirect tax model may be appropriate only for the very rich. 

Rehabilitating our planet is a necessity for many factors, including increased biodiversity and the potential containment of new viruses and diseases.

More on the topic: Addressing the Need For a Progressive Holistic Tax Model For Sustainable Development

2. Sustainable Foreign Policy Positively Impacts Debt and Climate

The US can no longer afford to serve as the global police force. India’s success in achieving freedom through nonviolent means serves as a testament to the power of nonviolent actions, inspiration, and words. If we integrate this understanding into our foreign policy, we may alleviate our debt, save lives, spend less on armaments, and rehabilitate our soil, air, and water due to the absence of bombs.

3. Sustainability in Governance

Removing money from politics ensures unbiased decision-making. Providing free advertising to election candidates by the media eliminates the need for further advertising expenditure. Laws must delineate boundaries on lobbying and special interest groups, a necessary step to avoid unwise choices. For instance, we should begin discouraging electric vehicle batteries that extract rare metals from the Earth, moon, and our ocean floor and promote metal-free biodegradable batteries instead.

4. Sustainable Education

Encouraging disruptive models in education is crucial. Companies establishing in-house centers for quality vocational education, including affordable compressed degree programs, warrant support. Aligning vocational and degree programs with the foundational elements of Earth (soil, water, air, energy, and space) heightens awareness of their interconnectedness, empowering the scientific community to address climate challenges. Measuring and managing the foundational elements via a single environmental health index assures proper stewardship. We cannot continue to build wealth without rehabilitating our planet’s health.

More on the topic: Op-Ed: Traditional Education Is Failing Us: Here’s What We Need for a Sustainable Planet

5. Simplifying Healthcare Assures Sustainability

Numerous experts have offered a variety of solutions to simplify the US healthcare system. Let us start tackling healthcare in bite-size chunks by making the complex simple. For example, streamlining the proliferation of plan choices in Medicare to just three simple plans – low, middle, and high income – may positively impact debt.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF), in 2024, the average American Medicare beneficiary has a choice of 43 Medicare Advantage plans; some counties have more than 75. And there are 1,333 special needs plans. Medicare also offers a traditional Medicare plan and several Supplemental plans. There are a plethora of prescription drug plans, too. The entire Medicare system is overwhelming with excess advertising and an army of brokers. Behavioral economists argue too much choice makes people indecisive and they often make wrong choices. Debt reduction strategies often address spending, but simplification eliminates several bureaucratic layers and lowers cumulative costs over the years.

6. Climate-Friendly Infrastructure May Lower Debt

According to the National Center for Environmental Information, the US had 377 weather and climate disasters since 1980 where overall costs reached or exceeded $1 billion (including CPI adjustment to 2024). The total costs of the 377 events amounted to $2.67 trillion. This underscores the need for climate-friendly infrastructure.

The government should promote eco-friendly materials in all public sector projects, such as advanced green composites, permeable bio-materials made from wastewater for roads, highways, buildings, and so on. The indirect tax model mentioned earlier will foster rapid innovation in this domain. Innovative solutions, like constructing a forest with wild animals on our southern border, can mitigate climate disasters and curb illegal immigration which can exacerbate long-term debt burden. 

More on the topic: US Sets Record For the Most Billion-Dollar Natural Disasters In Single Year

Conclusion 

In an interdependent and interconnected world, alleviating public debt solely by direct taxes, spending cuts, monetary and fiscal policies may not be sufficient. New paradigms of thought in sustainability and climate are also warranted.

Sustainable efforts continue to expand, changing one industry after another. The recent rise in green retirement options has urged seniors to rethink ecological living for various reasons, including more affordable home maintenance, better overall well-being, and protecting the planet. Learn more about this growing green lifestyle trend, its features, and how you can benefit from it.

—

Green initiatives began as a flicker several years ago, sweeping through industries from construction to finance and now senior living. About 30,600 assisted living communities throughout the US provide almost 1.2 million licensed beds. If these numbers all go green, it will carry a wave of massive positive change for the environment and help curb the worsening climate problem.

Sustainable Retirement

Like in other sectors, sustainability is fueled by the optimistic benefits encompassing all health aspects. Facilities providing senior care pursue ecological lifestyles in the following ways.

• Renewable energy

Many communities are shifting from fossil fuels to solar panels to power their units. It is cleaner and lowers residents’ monthly electric bills.

• Building architecture

They are opting for environmentally friendly and recyclable building materials, such as wood, brick and glass coverings. These boost insulation throughout all seasons, with walls retaining heat in winter and keeping indoors cooler during summer.

• Rainwater harvesting system

Having passive and active resource caching systems allows residents to collect and use water in many ways, such as flushing toilets, irrigating plants, bathing and washing laundry.

• Low-flow water fixtures

Over 45% of water use in an average American household happens in the bathroom. Many communities are revamping their plumbing design to slow water pressure in the toilet, shower, and kitchen faucets. It minimizes waste that converts into savings.

• Leadership in energy and environmental design (LEED) certification

LEED is a globally recognized rating system granted by the Green Building Certification Institute. Many senior living companies pursue this as proof of sustainability and to attract ecologically conscious residents.

What Attracts Seniors to Pursue Sustainable Retirement Options?

Many older adults move because of rising home maintenance. Annual upkeep can cost anywhere between 1-4% of the total cost of your residence, meaning you will spend about $20,000 each year to maintain a $500,000 home. To reduce those expenses, check for these aspects.

• Renewable electricity

The community can power their units using clean energy sources. It is self-sufficient to promote efficiency, leveraging solar panels, LED lighting and smart thermostats to reduce environmental impact. These options lessen seniors’ monthly bills.

• Accessible transportation

The facility should support ecological transportation options, such as having bike-friendly infrastructure to encourage residents to participate, providing access to electric vehicle charging stations and shuttle services to public transportation to lower reliance on private cars.

• Gardening

Many curve into the route of food independence by creating their own gardens to taper off emissions, provide a refuge for local species and have access to chemical-free produce. Gardening is a meaningful hobby many seniors share, and being near green spaces benefits mental, social, and emotional well-being. The joy of planting and harvesting their own organic produce can give residents a sense of purpose.

• Quality indoor air

They use renewable and recyclable materials – such as cork, stone and wood – during construction to dial down the environmental impact and simultaneously promote healthier indoor air for residents.

What Are Other Benefits of Moving Into a Green Community?

A green senior living facility has several advantages for the residents, the business and the environment.

• Reduced carbon footprint

Home energy use contributes to 20% of greenhouse gas emissions in the US. Wealthier people have 25% higher footprints than those with lower incomes because of larger space. Efficient design and practices in green retirement facilities can keep individual carbon footprints to a minimum.

• Access to green spaces at any time

A sustainable community gives seniors access to wider green spaces that affect their health positively. One study found older adults who participated in a 24-session therapeutic gardening program maintained healthy sleep patterns and mental health, including reduced anxiety and improved brain function. Their mean happiness score also increased. The more available nature is to you, the better it is for your well-being.

• Strong sense of community

Loneliness is a prevalent problem among seniors who live independently. By moving to a retirement community, they can make friends who foster shared values around sustainability. They get more social opportunities and avoid loneliness more easily.

What Are Top Sustainable Communities in the US to Retire to?

Leading a sustainable lifestyle can be challenging initially, but things get better after a while. Here are three examples of thriving eco-conscious communities that incorporate sustainability in their way of living.

• Dancing Rabbit Ecovillage

This community in Missouri started in 1997 with six members who left California to search for a new home where they could pursue ecological living. The community has since grown, with more than 40 members dedicated to creating a place that prioritizes the environment. They grow most of their food, and each house follows sustainability guidelines in building materials, techniques and design.

• Sawyer Hill EcoVillage

This ecovillage is located in Massachusetts and uses the best sustainability practices in housing development. Homes meet the LEED standards, while the clustered units allow residents to leave more than 75% of their 65-acre compound for open space. The community maintains organic gardens, uses neighborhood lighting systems, and has shared facilities like a dining hall and play area for kids.

• EcoVillage at Ithaca

This hamlet in upstate New York is one of the pioneers in the country’s green community. It is set on 175 acres of land, with over 90% of the space preserved for farming, recreational trails and wildlife habitats. The two onsite farms provide fresh vegetables and fruits to 1,500 people in the Ithaca area. It currently has 100 homes clustered within a 10-acre zone.

How Can You Support Sustainability in Your Community?

Seniors who are not ready to downsize and relocate to a green community can gradually adopt sustainability practices to lower their carbon footprint. Here are strategies to try.

• Participate in community gardening

Check if your church, nonprofit organization, or neighborhood association has a shared garden close to home and ask how to become a member. Tending a garden is a great opportunity to stay active and social instead of being cooped up and living sedentary. Get to know other members of the community and build friendships.

• Advocate for renewable energy adoption

Advocating for clean energy is challenging if you know little about it, so start by learning everything. Pioneering the adoption by installing solar or switching to LEDs gives you more convincing power to entice others in your neighborhood to do the same.

• Engage in local sustainability groups and initiatives

Sustainability projects are widespread, so get involved in a program in your local area. Check if there are recycling, tree-planting, composting, or community-supported agriculture programs, and volunteer to be part of them.

• Eat locally

Support local merchants and pick eateries that source their products from nearby farmers and suppliers.

Sustainable Retirement Options Promote Health

A healthy environment translates to cleaner air, water and more nutritious food. Moving to a sustainable community to retire empowers seniors to be part of the climate solution. By changing one or more aspects of their lifestyle, whether choosing restaurants using local produce or downsizing and relocating to a smaller home, they can become role models for green movements. Consider eco-friendly factors during your retirement.

Featured image: joyce huis/Unsplash

You might also like: 4 Steps to Reduce Your Carbon Footprint

• Instagram
• Twitter
• Facebook
• LinkedIn
• YouTube

This winter was the hottest ever recorded in nine US states, while 26 states saw their top-10 warmest winter.

—

This meteorological winter was the warmest on record in the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) confirmed earlier this month. 

The average temperature in December, January, and February was 37.6F (3.1C), 5.4F above average. Eight states – Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Vermont and Wisconsin – had their warmest winter on record, while winter temperatures were among the top-10 highest ever recorded across 26 additional states, according to the national weather agency.

The announcement came after February was confirmed the third-warmest in the US since records began 130 years ago, with an average temperature of 41.1F (5.05C). Last month was also the hottest February worldwide and the ninth month consecutively that recorded temperatures for a particular month have reached unprecedented levels.

Extreme Events

These climate anomalies are leading to a cascade of extreme weather events across the nation. 

Prolonged above-average temperatures are aggravating drought conditions in the US, with 21.6% of the country in a drought as of February 27. Meanwhile, the US Great Lakes – Superior, Michigan, Huron, Erie, and Ontario – experienced a steady decrease in ice coverage in recent months, which reached 2.7% on February 11, a historic low for mid-February.

Unseasonably warm temperatures combined with a cold front fueled powerful storms in the Upper Midwest, affecting Iowa, Illinois, and Wisconsin, with the latter experiencing its first-ever February tornado.

On the West Coast, a series of atmospheric rivers resulted in torrential rain in parts of California, which led to widespread flooding, landslides, and power outages. Warmer temperatures can contribute to the formation and intensification of atmospheric rivers, moisture corridors in the atmosphere that transport water vapor from the tropics to higher latitudes. Warmer temperatures increase evaporation, leading to more moisture in the atmosphere and thus fueling their formation and strength. 

More on the topic: The Science Behind Atmospheric Rivers

Since January 1, the US has seen one confirmed weather event – a severe storm affecting the East Coast in January – resulting in losses exceeding $1 billion, though the number is destined to increase.

A new assessment by Zurich-based reinsurance company Swiss Re published last month revealed that the US and the Philippines pay the highest annual price from climate change-driven extreme weather events in relation to their gross domestic product (GDP).

According to government figures, the US saw 28 billion-dollar natural disasters in 2023, with combined costs exceeding $92 billion. The year prior was the nation’s third-costliest year ever for climate disasters, with a total of 18 major climate disasters collectively racking up $165 billion in damages and claiming 474 lives.

Unfolding Trend

2023 was the hottest year on record, supercharged by the return of the El Niño, a weather phenomenon that has pushed temperatures off the charts around the world and that is expected to last well into 2024. 

Last month, Copernicus confirmed that the critical 1.5C global warming threshold set in the Paris Agreement was breached over a twelve-month period for the first time in history, with global temperatures at 1.52C above the 19th century benchmark. While this does not signal a permanent breach of the limit, which scientists say is measured over decades, it sends a clear warning to humanity that we are approaching the point of no return much faster than expected.

According to the United Nations, the world is on track to warm well above 2C and we are running out of time to make the transformational changes required to cap global temperature rises.

Commenting on the latest findings, Carlo Buentempo, Director of C3S, said February’s record-breaking temperatures were “not really surprising.”

“The climate responds to the actual concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere so, unless we manage to stabilise those, we will inevitably face new global temperature records and their consequences,” Buentempo said.

According to the latest analysis on global carbon dioxide (CO2) levels by the International Energy Agency (IEA), global CO2 emissions grew by 410 million tonnes – or 1.1% – in 2023, reaching a historic high of 37.4 billion tonnes. This was partly due to a global shortfall in hydroelectric power generation linked to historic droughts that have affected many regions of the world, which drove up emissions from fossil fuels by an additional 170 million tonnes. Without it, the agency said, global emissions would have likely declined last year.

Featured image: fosco lucarelli/Flickr

A juvenile endangered North Atlantic right whale carcass washed ashore last month in Martha’s Vineyard, in the US state of Massachusetts. The event provided undeniable proof that Maine’s lobster fishery gear is involved in entanglements that, along with boat strikes, is the primary threat to the survival of the beleaguered population.

—

For years, Maine’s lobster fishing industry has denied that there was proof that rope associated with their traditional rope-and-buoy lobstering gear was involved in the entanglement and subsequent deaths of North Atlantic right whales. Although Maine had not been directly implicated, a 2021 entanglement report produced evidence that 86% of observed right whales bore scars from entanglement with fishing gear.  

A legal wrestling match has been going on for years between Maine’s lobster fishery and federal agencies tasked with right whale management. 

The fishing industry contends that they have not seen whales in waters where the fishery sets its gear, arguing that rules meant to protect whales from entanglement unfairly target Maine’s fishers. The industry further contends that proposed or already required changes to their gear makes it more dangerous to operate. 

One regulation passed in 2020 required Maine’s fishers to add a colored rope – purple in this case – to their gear as a way to identify the geographic source of the gear. It was a purple rope marker that implicated Maine lobster gear in the entanglement that resulted in the death of the juvenile North Atlantic right whale carcass that washed ashore in Martha’s Vineyard in January.

Impact of Entanglements 

On its website, the Maine Lobstermen’s Association (MLA), an organization founded in 1954 to represent its members on issues related to lobster fishing, posted a response to the news of the death of the young right whale, saying the organization was “deeply saddened by the death of a juvenile right whale that NMFS has attributed to the Maine fishery.” 

Valued at roughly US$1.5 billion and thus an important contributor to the state’s economy, the industry lobbies hard at attempts by federal agencies to institute any regulations meant to protect the whales when these could have economical or operational consequences for the fishery.

The post went on to state that MLA believes that “entanglement in Maine gear is extremely rare,” and argues that the right whale was the first reported entanglement in Maine lobster gear in the past 20 years. 

However, research data offers a different perspective. 

The likelihood for entanglement is greatest during the right whales’ annual migration, which occurs in the waters off the coast of Maine. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries designates the coast of New England including Maine as critical habitat for foraging as the right whales travel to and from southern coastal waters. The area from Cape Fear, North Carolina to below Cape Canaveral, Florida, is deemed a critical habitat as the whales congregate in winter to breed and calf. 

When the body of a three-year-old female North Atlantic right whale washed ashore in Massachusetts, its fluke or tail had more than 100 feet (30.48 meters) of rope deeply embedded in it. The animal had been entangled in the rope for about a year. Previous attempts to remove the rope had been unsuccessful so that the rope had dug deeper and deeper into the whale’s flesh. 

Regina Asmutis-Silver, executive director of Whale and Dolphin Conservation USA, observed that the situation must have been incredibly painful for the whale. 

“Half her life was spent in pretty chronic pain,” she said.

Heather Pettis, a research scientist with the Anderson Cabot Center for Ocean Life at the New England Aquarium in Boston, counted the death of the whale known as No. 5120 as being of more significance than the loss of a single right whale. Pettis noted the impact of the individual to the survival of the entire population.

“She could have added into the population in her own calves, and then their calves and so on,” Pettis said.

You might also like: California Aquarium Accused of Harming the Maine Lobster Industry

A Population in Decline

According to NOAA, entanglement and vessel strikes are the primary causes for the decline of the North Atlantic right whale’s population. Since 2017, 78% of the 123 known incidents that have killed or seriously injured right whales are due to confirmed vessel strikes or gear entanglements. The deaths of female right whales have the greatest implications for the long-term survival of the population. Less than 70 of the estimated 360 living right whales are breeding females. 

Because right whale females are not sexually reproductive until the age of ten and produce one calf every six to ten years, the loss of a single female is a significant blow for the species. It is unclear whether the remaining 70 reproductively active females, roughly 20% of the current population, is sufficient to maintain the population if deaths attributed to entanglement and boat strikes were reduced or eliminated. Between 2010-2020, the right whale population declined about 25%. 

This winter, 17 calves have been observed off the Florida and Georgia coasts. Two are presumed dead because their mothers have been spotted without their calves. Another calf was observed critically injured as a result of a vessel strike and, according to NOAA, its prognosis for survival is poor. Moreover, on February 13, 2024, the carcass of another North Atlantic right whale was discovered. This female born last year was found floating off Tybee Island east of Savannah along the coast of Georgia. 

As the number of deaths continues to rise, Kathleen Collins, senior marine campaign manager for the International Fund for Animal Welfare, said the eastern coast of the US has become a graveyard. It is her contention that the “inaction from the administration is digging the graves.”

Prognosis for Survival 

According to NOAA, the number of known fatalities and injuries of right whales since 2017 has been high. The two juvenile deaths recorded since the beginning of the year bring the total since 2017 to 38 known fatalities. 

A solution that assures the North Atlantic right whale survival may not come in time to prevent the population from passing into oblivion. 

Environmental groups are seeking assistance from federal courts. They want to force the US government to finalize rules and require compliance in order to halt any further anthropogenic pressure on the population. The suits are often countered by the fishing industry and, in the one recent case, a federal appeals court sided with New England commercial fishermen. The court ruled that federal restrictions could cause the industry’s collapse, leaving a question about the impending collapse of the whale population.

Featured image: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, NOAA Research/Flickr

You might also like: Saving the Endangered North Atlantic Right Whale and the Maine Lobster Industry

Between 2000 and 2019, the average ski season in the country has shortened by almost a week.

—

Anthropogenic disruptions in the global climate system in recent years have significantly damaged the US ski industry, resulting in billions of dollars in economic losses, a new study has found.

Mountainous regions have been disproportionately affected by global warming, impacting snow cover and shortening the winter season. A recent assessment of human influence on Northern Hemisphere snow loss found a significant correlation between anthropogenic climate change and snow cover decline over the 1981-2020 period.

Among the industries most affected by these changes is ski tourism, as demonstrated in dozens of studies investigating the implications of climate change for ski operations sustainability and regional competitiveness.

According to the new study, which assessed more than 220 ski areas across four US regional ski markets, the average US ski season has shortened between 5.5 and 7.1 days in the 2000-2019 period, compared to 1960-1979, and it is expected to further shorten anywhere between 14-33 days and 27-62 days by 2050 in a low and high emissions scenario, respectively. This resulted in huge economic losses for the country’s ski industry, amounting to an average of $252 million a year and exceeding $5 billion over the past two decades. The costs of snow shortage come primarily in the form of loss revenue due to late opening or early closure of ski slopes and machine-made snow.

The US ski tourism industry – currently the largest in the world by number of skier visits – experienced a boom in the 1960s, during which 41% of all ski areas across the country began operating. Early signs of climate change in the 1970s pushed the industry to invest heavily in snowmaking technologies. By the mid-1980s, over 90% of ski operators in the Northeast and Midwest regions had implemented snowmaking and as of 2022, 89% of ski areas countrywide have such systems in place.

A 2022 study by the University of Basel warned that ski resorts will have to increase their reliance on artificial snow as global warming progresses. Given the elevated amount of water required for marking snow, from now until the end of the century, resorts’ water consumption is expected to increase by about 80%, up to 540 million litres compared with 300 million litres used today.

However, while artificial snow was first introduced as a way to adapt to snow shortage, a decline in the number of days with temperatures cool enough for snowmaking is making it increasingly difficult to maintain the skiing season.

“Climate change is an evolving business reality for the ski industry and the tourism sector,” said Daniel Scott, one of the researchers behind the study, adding that the peak ski season is past us. 

Last year was the hottest in history globally and 2024 is already breaking records with extraordinary levels of heat across the world.

The US is not the only country affected by snow shortage. Last year, a record-breaking winter heatwave forced ski resorts across Europe to close early due to a lack of snow. The Pyrenees, one of Europe’s dream destinations for ski enthusiasts, have experienced a sharp decline in visitors and economic instability in recent years, owing to increasingly irregular snowfall patterns.

Many also believe that the future of the popular Winter Olympics – an event that every four years brings together about 3,000 athletes from all over the world to compete in 15 disciplines – is uncertain. According to a study from the University of Waterloo, at the current trend, only one of the 21 cities that hosted the games in the past 100 years will have a climate suitable for winter sports by the end of the current century.

Featured image: Keith Bryant/Flickr

You might also like: Snow in Peril: The Impact of Climate Change on Ski Resorts in the Pyrenees

“Our insurance markets to protect people from climate-related disasters are breaking at the very moment we need them more than ever,” writes Carolyn Kousky, Associate Vice President for Economics and Policy at Environmental Defense Fund.

—

Over the last couple years, insurance has exploded into the global discourse, especially in the United States. Why? Our insurance markets to protect people from climate-related disasters are breaking at the moment we need them the most.

Disaster insurance can be thought of as many things. At base, it is a financial risk management strategy. Policyholders pay a small amount each year to be protected against a very large loss. For many, though, insurance is a box-checking or compliance exercise: something that must be purchased to comply with a regulation or to obtain a loan to buy a house, for example. For some consumers, it is just another product we buy, subject to market forces. For disasters, though, it could be an unfamiliar relationship with the government, blurring the line between a product and benefit.

But most importantly, insurance is a critical component of our disaster safety net. That role makes it deeply troubling that in many places around the US right now, disaster insurance is becoming scarce, unaffordable, and the quality of coverage is degrading.

Disasters impose an enormous range of costs on households. Damages to property can be very severe, with losses to buildings, their contents, and vehicles. Those impacted can also face a range of non-property expenses, such as those associated with evacuation, temporary housing, coping strategies for when power, water, or transit is down, and cleaning up debris. Businesses may not be able to operate, leading to declines in revenue for the firm and loss of income to households at the same time they face mounting expenses.

Most households cannot manage these financial impacts on their own. They simply do not have enough liquid savings. Credit can be limited, unavailable, or too burdensome. Our current patchwork of programs to help people make it through the recovery process has a lot of holes. And it is our most vulnerable that are falling through those holes, with recovery stretching into years, financial conditions worsening, and very little help available.

While we need to undertake reforms to our federal disaster aid programs, insurance will remain a critical part of any disaster safety net. In research with a colleague, we found that households with insurance have fewer unmet needs and fewer financial burdens. We also saw that insurance has positive spillovers to local economies: as more households are insured, visitations to local commercial establishments increase. Research has also found those with insurance are more likely to rebuild, and that insurance can prevent worsening inequality post-disaster. 

So, insurance plays a critical role in protecting people financially after a disaster. And once they have this financial protection, it benefits other areas of life, too. Having the resources needed to repair, rebuild, and recover reduces stress and anxiety, allows for continued spending on important items, like healthcare, and can make it faster for people to resume work and education. All of this is why it is so troubling when households cannot get the disaster insurance coverage they need. And now, far too often, they can’t.

As climate change advances, risks for insurers are increasingly leading to bankruptcies, skyrocketing prices, hallowed out coverage, and, in some places, insurers are completely abandoning certain locations or entire states. Before delving into current challenges, a bit of background is needed on why disasters have always been difficult for the private sector to insure.

Uninsurable

Insurance relies on mathematical laws that have built the modern insurance industry: when we pool independent risks together – risks that can’t be too extreme – a lot of great things happen. Losses become more predictable, uncertainty is reduced, and the maximum probable loss declines. What does all this mean? It means that it is easier for insurance companies to price policies and to be sure they will not face losses that will send them into insolvency.

These lovely mathematical laws do not hold, however, when everyone experiences losses at the same time and when those losses can be very large. That’s why a hurricane is so much harder for the insurance industry to cover than a single tree falling on someone’s roof, or why wildfires are so much harder than a one-off kitchen fire.

This means that losses from disasters are not stable year-to-year. Instead, losses may be low for many years and then incredibly high. For example, actuarial consulting firm Milliman has estimated that the severe wildfires in California in 2017 and 2018 wiped out twice the accumulated underwriting profit from the previous quarter century for California homeowners insurers, meaning that after the wildfires, the industry overall had a $10 billion underwriting loss since 1991.

You might also like: US Sets Record For the Most Billion-Dollar Natural Disasters In Single Year

Such severe losses can simply put insurers out of business. To protect against insolvency, insurers hold more reserves, they purchase reinsurance (insurance for insurance companies), and they might transfer some risk to financial markets. But all of that raises costs, which are passed onto the policyholder. And so we have long seen that disasters might not be able to be profitably covered by the private sector at a price that people are willing and able to pay.

In response, governments have stepped in to provide insurance. The federal government began doing this over 50 years ago with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). 

Every state prone to hurricanes has a so-called wind pool or beach plan. California uses its Fair Access to Insurance Requirements (FAIR) plan, programs born during high levels of urban riots to increase insurance in cities, to provide wildfire insurance. Colorado just last year created its first state program for wildfire. 

Now, growing risk is stressing both private and public insurers even more as we face the troubling implications of our failure to rapidly reduce carbon emissions coupled to continued development in areas at high-risk of climate extremes. Weather-related losses are on a constant upward trajectory and we are not building with that reality in mind.

Rising risk means insurers are paying more claims, paying them more often, and face a rising probability of bankrupting levels of losses from weather-related extremes. Insurers aren’t going to hurt their bottom line. So what are we seeing right now? 

Five Concerning Trends

First is bankruptcies. A dozen insurers in Louisiana have gone bankrupt the last few years with almost that many going under in Florida since 2017, with five liquidated just in 2022. Frequent and high storm losses coupled to insufficient capital for many smaller insurers have put policyholders at risk and taxed state programs that help pay claims when an insurer goes under. 

Second is escalating prices around the country. Some insurers had rate increases this year in the double digits. While prices are up everywhere, hot spots of risk like Florida, Louisiana, and Texas are seeing particularly high premiums. In addition, the federal flood program recently aligned its rates with property-level risk, which has meant higher premiums for homes in areas of higher flood risk.

Third is insurers pulling out of markets. State Farm and Allstate left the California market in the last year, along with multiple smaller insurers. Many national carriers left Florida years ago, but those that remained are now retreating, too. Farmers announced it will stop offering coverage in Florida last year, as did an AIG subsidiary, Lexington Insurance. Insurers are also abandoning Louisiana. And even when insurers don’t leave entire states, they are reducing coverage they offer in certain regions, such as along the coast, or in disaster-prone zip codes.

Fourth, insurers are starting to restrict the coverage they are offering. While many consumers think homeowners insurance policies are all the same, they are actually quite heterogenous. Insurers are noting they will need to revise policy terms as climate extremes accelerate in order to manage their exposure. Homeowners policies already exclude flood and now some insurers are excluding wind and fire, too. In addition, policies can have sublimits that cap the amount insurers will pay for certain losses like hail, mold, or burst pipes, for example. And high hurricane deductibles in the southeast mean insurers don’t start paying until after policyholders have paid a large share of the loss.

Finally, all of these trends are leading to a migration of risk from the private market into public sector programs. Enrollment in CA’s FAIR plan, which provides coverage in high wildfire areas, has more than doubled since 2018. In Louisiana, as of this fall, the number of homeowners with policies in their state program had tripled since Hurricane Laura in 2020. And in Florida, the state program has seen a growth in policies of over 200% since their low point in 2018, putting them at over 1.3 million policies and making them the largest insurer in the state. This is stressing the fiscal position of many of these programs, which were not designed to assume massive levels of risk. The programs, like the private sector, are thus needing rate increases and exploring various programs to lower their policy counts, such as paying insurers to take policies out of the programs. 

You might also like: Hurricane Scale Needs Category 6 to Reflect Climate Change-Driven Increase in Wind Speed, Scientists Say

To be sure, there have been other factors driving these trends apart from climate change. This includes higher interest rates, inflation, higher rebuilding costs, and, in Florida, legal challenges for insurers. These are important forces that have, in some sense, created the perfect storm for insurance breakdown the last few years. Some, though, are now being addressed – inflation is coming down and Florida has adopted reforms for its market.

But this is the really hard problem we face: how do we maintain available and affordable insurance for climate extremes in the face of ever-increasing risks? The only long-term answer: transformative levels of investment in lowering risks and in climate adaptation.

What Insurers Should Do

While there have been important increases in federal dollars for resilience investments and several communities that have made serious commitments to invest in climate adaptation, we are not going nearly far enough or fast enough to maintain insurable communities in the highest-risk locations.

What is needed sounds easy: stronger building codes, zoning and permitting that requires consideration of climate risk, retreat from the highest risk areas, expanded investments in green and gray protective infrastructure, home hardening, and commitments to resilient landscapes. But in practice, it is hard.

In too many places there is still a mistaken belief that building codes to make our construction better able to withstand hazards are too expensive, even when research shows that benefits far outweigh the costs. There are often communities that think they should waive those codes in the rebuilding process to make it easier on folks to get back in their homes when it just sets them up for growing losses and greater suffering in the future. And in many places, prohibiting development – even in an area of high risk that will lead to high damages in the future and put people in harm’s way – is anathema to residents and local leaders.  

There is a lot insurers could do to support greater investments in risk reduction. First, insurers need to play a role as advisors. They need to be more transparent about their risk information and risk tolerance to help communities identify and implement risk reduction strategies that will maintain insurability for their populations. Insurers, however, do not typically see such engagement as their role. And no firm wants to announce the need for escalating prices, but that information is essential to making sound development choices.

Any advisory role can be hindered, however, by the fact that many of the models insurers use for underwriting and pricing – catastrophe models – may not adequately account for investments in risk reduction. They may not include data on which homes have been hardened against hurricanes or wildfires, for example, or the models may have no way to account for investments in wetlands that store flood waters or larger pipes to control rainwater. 

However, without inclusion of these measures, insurance is not providing accurate information on the true risk and households and communities that invest in important resilience measures will still face insurance market stress. Insurer pressure on vendors to make sure all models transparently include risk reduction and climate adaptation would be a crucial step forward. Governments and different startups are also working to fill key data gaps. Regulators could do more by requiring disclosure of how insurers, and the models they use, incorporate risk reduction to inform their underwriting and pricing.

But insurers can do more than provide information and guarantee they are accounting for the hazard mitigation investments made by policyholders and their communities. The time of rebuilding is a critical opportunity to build stronger and more resilient communities. At that moment, households need two things: funding to pay for the needed investments and support figuring out what to do and who to call to do the work (who is trustworthy, skilled, and has fair prices). Insurers can help on both counts.

We know how to build homes that can withstand much of the impact of severe storms and hurricanes. The Institute for Business and Home Safety researches how homes perform under disaster-like conditions (literally mimicking hurricane strength winds on fake houses or embers flying at a house). They have used their findings to develop the Fortified building standard for protection against high winds and Wildfire Prepared against wildfires. The demonstrated success can be striking: photos of complete destruction from a hurricane, but the Fortified homes are left standing, as if immune to the storm.

Insurers could provide funding to build to these standards during disaster recovery through a specified endorsement on all the property insurance policies. Fortified endorsements have been used in Alabama already, where the state required insurers to offer them as an add-on option to policyholders. It has been estimated that the additional costs to upgrade a roof to Fortified standards are between $700 and $1700, excluding the certification, which costs an additional $300 and $600. A fortified endorsement would pay these costs for policyholders during rebuilding.

It is also worth noting that in addition to supporting stronger buildings, insurance can be made more flexible to support relocation when risk has gotten too high and a household just wants to be able to move somewhere safer. Right now, there can be restrictions in policies – or from lenders for those with a mortgage – that make it difficult for a policyholder to walk away from their disaster damaged home and relocate elsewhere. California can offer lessons on how to make this work. Insured property-owners in the state have the legal right to collect the full claim payment that would have been owed to them for rebuilding but to instead use the payout to rebuild or buy a home at a different location instead. Nevertheless, if the replacement home in the new location costs less, they cannot pocket the difference. Problematically, this does not put the land into open space, such that some other person can move in, perpetuating risk cycles. To be effective, such an approach needs to be coupled to a state buyout program, such as New Jersey has for flood-prone properties, to permanently keep people out of harm’s way.

One final action insurers could be taking around risk reduction is drawing the links for policymakers, as well as their clients, between weather extremes and greenhouse gas emissions because ramping up the phase out of fossil fuels is the most comprehensive risk reduction strategy. This could be done through informational outreach and support for federal and state climate policy. In addition, insurers could also support reducing emissions in the building and automotive sector at the time of rebuilding with a climate endorsement. This add-on would provide extra funds for energy efficient rebuilding, electrification, adding rooftop solar on the rebuilt home, or allowing for a totaled car to be replaced with an EV. While some of those changes do come with higher price tags, the greater social good could justify public dollars to pay for reasonably priced climate endorsements on behalf of policyholders.

Final Thoughts

Motivating actions that lower risks is harder than it should be. One problem is that, as a species, we are often prone to short-termism. We are myopic. We also know that many of our institutions – private and public – have baked in incentives for short-term thinking. 

This could lead us to try and prop up property values in the short-term through subsidized insurance and lending that is not pricing climate risk, or lead certain stakeholders to argue against information disclosure because, in the short-term, such knowledge might devalue some properties. It could also lead others to lobby against strong building codes or relax them during rebuilding because of a few extra dollars now. But all these things do is set us up for far worse consequences in the future. They just delay the day of reckoning.

Stabilizing markets and adapting for what’s to come might require recognizing that, while there aren’t always wins in the short term, we can shift the narrative and change the course of things in the long-term. We can focus on the savings over the longer term from stronger building and investments in strategies like protecting wetlands. We can develop policies to protect the most vulnerable in the short-term, while helping ensure our communities remain viable and thriving in the longer-term. 

Let’s not be hasty to preserve the status quo while ignoring growing risks, but instead set our sights on a vision of the long-term resilience of our communities.

You might also like: Top 6 Environmental Issues the US Is Facing in 2024

While the majority of fires throughout the history of the US have been started by careless human actions, they have in recent years become more ferocious because of the climate crisis. In fact, rising temperatures are making them more intense, frequent, and destructive. Here are 15 of the largest wildfires in US history.

—

17 Largest Wildfires in US History

1. Texas Wildfires (2024)

The 2024 Texas wildfires refer to several major fires that broke out in late February 2024 in the US state, including the Smokehouse Creek Fire in Hutchinson County; they are the largest wildfire event in Texas’ history. The Smokehouse Creek Fire alone has burned an estimated 1.1 million acres, surpassing the massive East Amarillo Complex fire in 2006, which scorched almost 1 million acres, and becoming the second-largest and most destructive fire in US history.

2. Maui Wildfires, Hawaii (2023)

In August 2023, a string of devastating wildfires erupted in Hawaii, primarily affecting the island of Maui. Fuelled by strong winds, these fires prompted evacuation orders and inflicted extensive destruction, resulting in a tragic loss of at least 100 lives, with four individuals reported missing in the historical town of Lahaina along Maui’s northwest coastline. The outbreak of these wildfires was attributed to arid and blustery conditions caused by a powerful high-pressure system situated north of Hawaii, combined with the presence of Hurricane Dora to the south.

The Lahaina fire’s death toll was the largest for a wildfire in the country since the 1918 Cloquet fire, which killed 453 people.

Although Maui generally enjoys wet and rainy weather conditions, climate change is having a negative impact on how often rainfall occurs, triggering rare drought conditions and water shortages. Over the last three decades, rainfall in Hawaii has decreased by 18%.

3. Dixie Fire, California (2021)

Following an unprecedented heat wave in June 2021, California was once again engulfed in raging wildfires. According to CalFire, the fire has burned more than 463,000 acres in Northern California, taking hundreds of buildings down with it and threatening nearly 14,000 structures. Experts have warned that the Dixie Fire’s dramatic growth and size are fuelled by severe drought conditions and global temperature increase. The Dixie Fire of 2021 was named the second-largest fire in California history.

4. Bay Area Fire, California (2020)

Starting in the Bay Area, the Bay Area fire was one of the largest wildfire in US history and tore through parts of California, Oregon and Washington state. By September 15, they burned almost one million acres of land and killed at least 35 people. At one point, every 24 hours, an area the size of Washington DC was being burned. The North Complex fire alone was responsible for more than 300 000 acres of scorched land, killing 16 people in its wake. Five of the six largest blazes in the state were recorded in 2020. Meanwhile, Stanford researchers estimate that the smoke and resulting poor air quality eventually led to hundreds of excess deaths in California cities and across the west coast in Washington and Oregon.

This wildfire map uses near and shortwave infrared data collected between July 24 and September 26th, 2020, to track changes in the landscape’s green spaces. The bar at the bottom measures the severity of the burns from the deadliest wildfire in US history. Source: Earth.Org. 

5. Camp Fire, California (2018)

The Camp Fire was reported on November 8 2018 in Butte County. The fire grew rapidly and became the deadliest and largest fire in California history. It burned 153 336 acres, destroyed nearly 19 000 homes and killed at least 85 people. While it was contained on November 25, search and rescue efforts continued into December.

6. Tubbs Fire, California (2017)

The Tubbs Fire started in October 2017 in Northern California and was one of more than 200 fires that hit the state that year. The wildfire burned more than 36 800 acres across Sonoma and Napa counties. The fire killed 22 people and destroyed thousands of homes; the city of Santa Rosa lost 5% of its housing stock.

You might also like: What Causes California Wildfires?

7. Yarnell Fire, Arizona (2013)

The Yarnell Hill Fire started on June 28, 2013 in Yarnell Arizona. The wildfire is believed to have been started by a lightning strike and it burned more than 8 000 acres of land. The fire killed 19 firefighters, making it the deadliest and largest wildfire in Arizona history. 

8. Alaska Fire Season (2004)

The 2004 fire season in Alaska was the worst on record in terms of area burned by wildfires in the history of the US state of Alaska. More than 6.6 million acres of land were burned by 701 fires. 215 of these were started by lighting strikes; the other 426 were started by humans. The summer of 2004 was extremely warm and wet in comparison to typical interior Alaska summer climate, which resulted in record amounts of lighting strikes. After months of this lighting and increased temperatures, an uncharacteristically dry August resulted in the fires that continued through September. 

9. Oakland Hills Fire, California (1991)

This famous wildfire started on the hills of Oakland, California on October 19 1991. It started as a wind-driven brush fire, but turned into a firestorm that tore through residential neighbourhoods and charred 3000 homes and apartment buildings. In just two days, the fire spread across 1 520 acres of land. 25 people were killed and at least 150 more were injured. 

10. Yellowstone Fires (1988)

These fires collectively formed the largest wildfire in the recorded history of the Yellowstone National Park in the US. Spurred by drought conditions and winds, the fire quickly spread out of control and turned into one large fire that burned for several months. Only cool, moist autumnal weather extinguished the fires. A total of 793 880 acres, or 36% of the park, were affected by the fires. More than 9 00 firefighters fought the fires at its peak and at one point, more than 4 000 US military personnel were brought in to assist. 

11. Cloquet Fire (1918)

On October 12, 1918, sparks from a railroad led to a wildfire in Carlton County, Minnesota because of extremely dry conditions. More than 250 000 acres of land was burned and at least 550 died, while a further 12 000 were injured or displaced. 

12. The Great Fire of 1910, Connecticut

Also called the Big Burn, Big Blowup or the Devil’s Broom fire, this wildfire roared through the states of Idaho and Montana during the summer of 1910. The fire burned for just two days, but strong winds caused the initial fire to combine with other smaller fires to form one massive blaze that destroyed 3 million acres and killed 85 people, making this one of the worst wildfires in Us history. 

You might also like: The Impact of Wildfires on Biodiversity and the Environment

13. Yacolt Burn (1902)

This is the collective name for dozens of fires in Washington state and Oregon that occurred between September 8 and September 12 1902. They collectively caused 65 deaths and burned through 500 000 acres. In addition to careless human action, the summer of 1902 had been drier than usual and there was a build up of slash left from loggers that had not been burned off properly in the preceding two summers which acted as fodder for the fires. 

14. Great Michigan Fire (1871)

In October 1871, the Great Michigan Fire started out as a series of smaller fires that merged. The fire ravaged the towns of Holland, Port Huron and Manistee, as well as the shoreline of Lake Michigan. The fire is estimated to have burned at least 3 900 square miles in Michigan and killed around 500 people.

15. Peshtigo Fire, Wisconsin (1871)

The blaze started on October 8 1871 and burned around 1.2 million acres. At least 1 152 people were killed, making this the worst fire that claimed more lives than any of the other wildfires in US history. It happened on the same day as the Great Chicago Fire, which overshadowed the Wisconsin fire. 

16. Great Hinckley Fire (1884)

In September 1884, the Great Hinckley Fire broke out near the town of Hinckley, Minnesota. At that time, trees were commonly stripped of their branches before cutting them down for lumber, but that left pine forests filled with dry, dead branches. This fuelled the fire and caused it to burn 250 000 acres in just four hours. Officially, 418 people were killed but historians believe that hundreds of Native Americans were killed and were left out of the fatality count.

17. Thumb Fire, Michigan (1881)

One of the largest wildfires in US history started on September 5 1881 in the Thumb region of eastern Michigan. The fire is thought to have been exacerbated by dry summer conditions and drought. Burning around 1 million acres, it spread from Lapeer County to Huron, Tuscola, Sanilac and Lapeer counties. At least 282 people were killed. The flames produced so much soot and ash that the sun was partially obscured in the East Coast, turning the sky a yellowish colour.

These are just some of the worst wildfires in US history; there are many more that have caused extensive damage to communities and landscapes. Climate change is increasing the frequency and intensity of wildfires around the world, but especially in the US and will continue to do so until the causes of climate change- including burning fossil fuels- are addressed urgently. No state can afford to deal with the carnage of these crazy fires every year, making curbing climate change absolutely vital

Featured image by: EO Photographer Justin Sullivan

If you enjoyed this article, you might also like: Top 12 Largest Wildfires in History

The plaintiff accuses the JBS Group of “repeatedly” making deceptive sustainability claims, knowing that climate-conscious consumers would otherwise stop buying their products.

—

The state of New York is suing the US arm of JBS, the world’s largest meat processing enterprise, over misleading claims that it was actively working to reduce its environmental footprint.

According to the plaintiff, New York Attorney General Letitia James, JBS USA “repeatedly” misled consumers into thinking the company “was taking substantial and definitive action to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the impacts of their industrial agricultural practices on the environment,” and had “no viable plan” to meet its “net zero by 2040” commitment. 

Founded in 1953 and headquartered in Sao Paulo, Brazil, the JBS Group conducts business related to the processing, distribution, and sale of animal-based products in over 20 countries across five continents. In 2022, the multinational recorded a net revenue of US$72.6 billion. The US arm – headquartered in Greenley, Colorado – represents the largest portion of the company’s market, accounting for 49% of its total revenue. 

“As families continue to face the daily impacts of the climate crisis, they are willing to spend more of their hard-earned money on products from brands that are better for the environment,” James said in a statement. 

“When companies falsely advertise their commitment to sustainability, they are misleading consumers and endangering our planet. JBS USA’s greenwashing exploits the pocketbooks of everyday Americans and the promise of a healthy planet for future generations. My office will always ensure that companies do not abuse the environment and the trust of hardworking consumers for profit,” the Attorney General said.

You might also like: 10 Climate Lawsuits to Follow in 2024 and Why They Matter

The Environmental Impact of Meat

According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, our global food system accounted for over a third of global greenhouse gas emissions in 2021, with 57% of them attributable to the use of cows, pigs and other animals for food, as well as livestock feed. In fact, 20 of the world’s biggest meat and milk producers single-handedly emit more greenhouse gases than whole industrialised countries like Germany, France or Britain, as a 2021 report published by Friends of the Earth has shown. 

According to the court filing, the world’s top-five meat and dairy corporations combined generate more greenhouse gas emissions than fossil fuel giants ExxonMobil, Shell, or BP individually, with the JBS Group being the largest contributor. In 2021, the company reported over 71 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions, the equivalent of nearly 16 million gasoline-powered cars driven for one year.

The industry is also directly linked to forest loss. At least 75% of this deforestation is attributed to agricultural activities, including the clearance of forests for crop cultivation, livestock grazing, and the production of commodities such as paper. The primary catalyst behind global deforestation is beef production, with the conversion of land for cattle grazing and feed production accounting for approximately 41% of deforestation, equivalent to about 2.1 million hectares annually – roughly half the size of the Netherlands. This equates to over 16.4 million trees lost each day as a result of animal agriculture.

Americans are the world’s largest meat eaters, consuming around 124 kilograms of meat per person each year. In a review of the current state of research on the environmental, health, and economic effects of eating meat, authors Martin Parlasca and Matin Qaim of the University of Bonn stated that “if all humans consumed as much meat as Europeans or North Americans, we would certainly miss the international climate targets and many ecosystems would collapse.”

More on the topic: How Animal Agriculture Is Accelerating Global Deforestation

Controversial legislative actions and management strategies threaten the progress made in wolf recovery efforts. Despite federal wildlife authorities declining pleas to reinstate safeguards for gray wolves in the Northern Rockies, conservation groups continue to advocate for their protection.

—

In recent decades, there has been a paradigm shift in attitudes toward wolves, largely due to a better understanding of their ecological importance. Wolves are now recognized as apex predators. As such, they contribute to controlling the populations of prey species and ensuring the overall balance and health of the ecosystem. However, it will be hard to uphold it if the agencies and legislative bodies are reluctant to maintain this balance.

Conservation and animal protection groups are willing to take a stand after federal wildlife authorities declined their pleas to reinstate safeguards for gray wolves in the northern US Rocky Mountains. Wolves in the Northern Rockies are found in parts of Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, Oregon, eastern Washington, and northern Utah.

The agency said that the species is not in enough danger of extinction despite some states targeting to cull their populations through hunting. On the contrary, in a press release published earlier this month, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) stated that they aim to complete a new initiative – the “first-ever nationwide gray wolf recovery plan” – by December 2025. 

This is said to be associated with implementing efforts at certain sites to reduce threats and protect them. Despite this, some animal conservation groups continue to express frustration over federal officials for “harming wolf recovery by denying wolves in the northern Rockies the powerful federal protections they deserve.” 

In May 2021, the Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club, and Humane Society of the United States sought to have the Northern Rockies wolf population added to the Endangered Species Act (ESA), yet their plea was disregarded. The FWS declared the gray wolf endangered at the species level (Canis lupus) in most of the country in 1978, while the wolf population in Minnesota was categorized as threatened.

In 2011, Congress intervened through a congressional rider on a must-pass budget bill. It removed the Northern Rockies population – Idaho, Montana, eastern Washington, eastern Oregon, and northern Utah – from the endangered list and prevented judicial review of this decision. Wolves belong to the same family as foxes, coyotes, domestic dogs, jackals, and several extinct species, collectively known as canids.

The rejection of the petitions also means that authorized wolf hunting can proceed in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. The conservation groups argued in the petition that allowing renewed hunting of wolves in certain Western states could erase decades of progress toward their recovery if federal protections were not reinstated. 

What Drives Such Draconian Measures?

Wolves and humans have a long-standing history of conflict. Some might argue it is rooted in fear, misunderstanding, misconceptions, and old animosities towards these apex predators that persist. Incidents of wolf attacks on humans are rare, and wolves are not just pests to be exterminated at will. Wolves were once on the brink of extinction in the lower 48 states, and significant strides have been made to reintroduce and protect them. 

The legislation includes measures such as offering bounties of up to US$2,000 for killing wolves. Idaho has allocated over $1 million for the systematic killing of wolves, which seems a misplaced set of priorities. Instead of investing in sustainable coexistence strategies, Idaho has chosen to squander resources on a misguided campaign of killing.

After they were taken off the ESA list, wolves in the Northern Rockies were widely hunted and harmed. Historically, they were hunted to near-extinction in numerous regions due to ranchers’ fear for their livestock, hunters perceiving wolves as competition, and politicians pandering to these sentiments for short-term gains. 

Idaho legislation (Senate Bill 1211) authorizes the state to enlist private contractors, grants hunters, and trappers unrestricted authority to kill wolves, and allows hunters free rein to kill wolves on private land during the year-round trapping season. The same methods permitted for trapping wild canids in Idaho are also accepted for trapping wolves. 

It also allows hunters and trappers to use dogs and vehicles to hunt down and kill wolves. Over the past two years, they have already killed over 560 wolves and are aiming to reach 800.

In 2017, wolves were removed from the ESA list, but Wyoming is not any better off than Idaho. The Department of Fish and Game (DFG) allows individuals to hunt wolves year-round in most parts of the state without requiring a license. This includes utilizing methods such as using snowmobiles to chase them down and destroying dens where wolf pups and mothers reside.  

Hunters in Wyoming have lawfully killed many wolves that come within about 10 miles of the Colorado border. Wolves may be moving back into Colorado naturally or through planned efforts to reintroduce them. 

Montana has also passed laws aimed at aggressively culling wolf populations. The statehas expanded the wolf-trapping timeframe by four weeks and instituted a bounty program to reimburse hunters and trappers for wolf-killing expenses. They aim to eliminate 90% of their wolf population and have already killed more than 235 wolves this season. 

Nick Gevock, a Sierra Club field organizer for the Northern Rockies, expressed frustration with the FWS for failing to acknowledge the detrimental impact of the methods employed by Idaho and Montana on wolf populations. 

Gevock likened these methods to those used in the 1800s to eradicate wolves and argued that they are unsuitable for modern wildlife management. “No other species is treated this way, and it’s reversing what was a great conservation success story,” said Gevock.

The successful reintroduction of gray wolves to their former habitat in the Northern Rockies region and the achievement of the goal of 15 breeding pairs of wolves in each state across the region earlier than expected were among the remarkable stories in the history of wildlife conservation. Not until these draconian measures start to gain support from legislative bodies.

Four conservation groups informed the FWS of their intention to take legal action regarding the agency’s “illegally” denying the request for wolf protection. The petition might be denied, but conservation and animal protection groups committed to a shared goal will still stand out for fighting for the rights of these species.