Category: Ecoperspectives

EcoPerspectives Blog

Action to Protect Public Health and the Environment Must be Taken PFAST

By Ashton Danneels, Staff Editor for the Vermont Journal of Environmental Law

May 3, 2024

 

Non-stick pans, waterproof clothing, popcorn bags, and firefighting foam, what do these items have in common? They all contain PFAS.

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) have garnered significant attention in recent years due to their ubiquitous presence in various consumer products and the detrimental health effects associated with exposure. Scientific evidence indicates a connection between PFAS contamination and health effects such as elevated cholesterol levels, kidney cancer, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, testicular cancer, and pregnancy-induced hypertension. These “forever chemicals” have posed a significant challenge to regulators and communities alike, prompting decisive action to mitigate their adverse impacts. PFAS stand out due to their unique chemical structure, to make a PFAS molecule, you replace hydrogen with fluorine in a carbon chain. This alternation makes PFAS incredibly persistent and resistant to degradation, as breaking a carbon-fluorine bond requires substantial energy. This distinct structure sets PFAS apart from other chemicals and contributes to their persistence in the environment. Because of this persistence and the fact they are used in so many consumer products, making their way into water supply; 98% of 99% of people have PFAS in their bodies. Currently, the EPA is only able to regulate 29 of the nearly 15,000 synthetic chemicals. This blog post delves into PFAS regulation and the significance of these efforts in safeguarding public health and the environment.

 

Understanding PFAS

Manufacturers have been producing and utilizing PFAS, which are synthetic chemicals, in a wide array of industrial and consumer products since the 1940s. From non-stick cookware to waterproof clothing, PFAS have found their way into countless everyday items due to their desirable properties such as water and stain resistance. However, their persistence in the environment and bioaccumulative nature have raised concerns regarding their long-term effects on human health and ecosystems. These compounds endure long after their initial use, accumulating in the bloodstreams of people and animals worldwide. The true extent of PFAS contamination in water, soil, and air is still undetermined.

 

The Regulatory Landscape

Efforts to regulate PFAS have intensified in recent years, driven by mounting evidence of their harmful effects and growing public awareness. The EPA has recognized the urgent need for action but has left most regulatory measures up to the states to take action to address PFAS contamination and protect their communities from exposure. Particularly, the Biden-Harris Administration has prioritized the issue, recognizing the urgent need for action. For example, the Administration has proposed the first ever national drinking water standard , which will set enforceable levels for six PFAS that are known to contaminate drinking water. There are also efforts by the Administration to understand the difference sources and pathways of human exposure to PFAS, which is important in the mitigation effort. They have also created a PFAS strategy team, hopefully these efforts will create actionable steps to address this pervasive problem.

 

Proposed Rules by EPA

The EPA has proposed a rule in February, 2024 aimed at bolstering its approach to tackling PFAS pollution:

Modification of Hazardous Waste Definition: The EPA is proposing to modify the definition of hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to ensure clearer authority for addressing emerging contaminants like PFAS. The proposed rule includes defining nine specific PFAS (including PFOA and PFOS) as hazardous constituents under RCRA. This stems from EPA’s evaluation of scientific studies, confirming these six PFAS exhibit toxic, carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic effects, meeting the standard of a hazardous constituent. If finalized, facilities subject to RCRA corrective action requirements will be required to consider and potentially remediate these PFAS during the cleanup process at treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. This modification would empower regulators to compel cleanup efforts at permitted hazardous waste facilities, thereby enhancing protections for communities and the environment. This proposed rule would mark a good start, as PFAS have not been labeled as hazardous constituents before, meaning they were not as severely regulated under RCRA.

 

Global Concerns and Advocacy

Concerns regarding PFAS contamination have also come to an international forefront. The United Nations has criticized chemical companies like DuPont and Chemours for their role in perpetuating PFAS pollution, particularly in communities such as those along the lower Cape Fear River in North Carolina. In response to a complaint filed with the UN about the PFAS contamination in the drinking water by Clean Cape Fear, a community action group, the UN has issued letters to the chemical manufacturers, citing human rights violations. This continued advocacy work will hopefully begin to hold the chemical manufacturers liable for the pervasive problem of PFAS contamination. The UN’s scrutiny highlights the need for concerted efforts to hold polluters accountable and prioritize the rights and well-being of affected populations.

 

Legislative Action and Community Advocacy

In addition to regulatory measures, proponents have proposed legislative initiatives to comprehensively address PFAS contamination. The bipartisan PFAS Action Act represents a significant step forward in this regard. The proposed legislation seeks to establish national drinking water standards for key PFAS compounds, designate PFAS as hazardous substances, and implement measures to mitigate contamination and protect vulnerable communities. Additionally, it will accelerate the designation of certain PFAS as hazardous substances, set discharge limits on industrial releases which will prohibit unsafe incineration, and require comprehensive health testing. It also includes provisions for assisting schools and childcare facilities in addressing PFAS contamination and ensuring manufacturers provide reference standards to expedite mitigation efforts. Endorsed by various environmental organizations, such as the NRDC, the PFAS Action Act reflects a collaborative effort to enact meaningful change and safeguard public health.

States are actively safeguarding individuals from PFAS exposure, with 28 states implementing 141 policies and 34 states introducing 277 policies to protect residents from contamination. For instance, New York enacted legislation mandating manufacturers of children’s products containing hazardous chemicals to notify both the state and retailers, leading to a ban on PFAS-containing products. In 2023, a proposed bill required disclosure of PFAS chemical amounts in discharges into state waterways by publicly owned treatment works and industrial waste dischargers. Another bill aimed to prohibit the sale of covered products, including textiles, rugs, cookware, and cleaning products, containing PFAS. These actions underscore how  are leading the charge in regulating PFAS and reducing human exposure.

 

Conclusion

The regulation of PFAS represents a multifaceted endeavor encompassing regulatory, legislative, and advocacy-driven approaches. As scientific understanding of PFAS continues to evolve and awareness of their impacts grows, stakeholders must remain vigilant in addressing this pervasive environmental and public health challenge. Implementing robust regulatory frameworks, enacting supportive legislative, and fostering community engagement can help us strive towards a future where we effectively manage the risks associated with PFAS.

EcoPerspectives Blog

Uncovering New Opportunities in Environmental Law

By Alejandra Mendoza, Alexandra Haymons, Chase Hetler, Valerie Xiong*

May 1, 2024

 

Introduction

American environmental law has made tremendous headway over the last 50 years. For example, federal laws now regulate commercial fishing, promote clean water, and support renewable energy development. These federal regulations complement numerous examples of decentralized and nonstate environmental governance, including using climate networks and coalitions to build urban resilience against climate change. Despite this progress, American environmental laws across scales and environmental regimes face at least four common challenges that constrain their efficacy: legal and statutory ambiguity, statutory interpretation approaches, bureaucratic implementation, and barriers to collaboration. As undergraduate students who are surveying the dominant environmental law frameworks that we hope to shape during our careers, we acknowledge these challenges. Nevertheless, we believe that each challenge we highlight also illustrates actionable pathways to strengthen and reimagine U.S. environmental law.

 

Resolving Legal Ambiguity

First, many federal environmental statutes contain vague statutory language that often provides opportunities to deprioritize conservation efforts. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) is a clear example of this vague language. The MSA establishes standards for sustainable fisheries management with a broad goal to sustain, protect, and increase fish populations for food supply, ecosystem health, economic benefits, and community resilience. However, its bycatch standard says “conservation and management measures shall, to the extent practicable, (a) minimize bycatch and (b) to the extent bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize the mortality of such bycatch” without outlining tangible steps to do so. This vague language allows for the continued capture of bycatch in the name of practicality. Since profits tie to commercial fishing efficiency, passive methods that maximize catch and minimize effort are generally the most destructive. Thus, bycatch is not practically avoidable in the current commercial system. As a result, commercial tuna fisheries commonly catch marine megafauna like sharks, dolphins, and sea turtles as bycatch. Although fisheries target elasmobranchs (sharks, skates, and rays), more than 50% of their decline is due to bycatch.

 

Therefore, the MSA and accompanying regulations must clearly define necessary changes in the commercial fishing industry, such as gear modifications and passive gear observation, to achieve its stated objective of reducing and eliminating unsustainable bycatch. As the MSA demonstrates, American environmental law benefits from the presence of many comprehensive environmental statutes; embracing opportunities to clarify indistinct language in alignment with the purpose of these laws can eliminate loopholes and strengthen the frameworks that we already have.

 

Reforming Statutory Interpretation

Second, the ambiguous language in many American environmental laws means that many environmental lawsuits function as venues for contesting statutory interpretation. In environmental litigation, technicalities as narrow as a single term’s definition or “plain meaning” can determine the rigor of environmental protection. For instance, “navigable waters” and “waters of the United States” in the Clean Water Act (CWA) have been heavily debated for decades. In the landmark, unanimous United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc. (1985) decision, the Supreme Court declared wetlands “navigable waters” and “waters of the United States,” and attempted to specify this further in the heavily divided Rapanos v. United States (2006) case. But most recently, the court limited wetland protections in Sackett v. EPA (2023) based on a dictionary definition of the word “waters.”

 

Meanwhile, County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund (2020) opened the doors for regulating nonpoint source pollution through groundwater, which has historically proven difficult to regulate. In both Riverside Bayview and County of Maui, the Court recognized the CWA’s greater commitment to prevent water pollution and accordingly expanded the definitions of ambiguous terms to fit this purpose. These decisions—reflective of a purposive approach to statutory interpretation—have resulted in increased protection of the nation’s waters amid emerging environmental challenges, when text-based approaches have at best been inconsistent and at worst achieved the opposite. More broadly, purposive approaches suggest an opportunity to strengthen environmental laws, as these approaches revive statutory interpretation practices to allow appellate courts to interpret statutes based on their “spirit” rather than their textual plain meaning.

 

Effective Implementation

Alongside challenges in interpreting existing federal environmental statutes, a third common challenge is how to effectively use statutory frameworks to their full potential. This has become apparent as the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) navigates the challenge of implementing renewable energy on public land under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the National Environmental Protection Act. These Acts establish the multiple-use sustained yield doctrine, which allows land use flexibility aligned with renewable energy goals.

 

In 2016, the BLM initiated the Solar and Wind Energy Rule under this framework, which formalized a “smart” approach to renewables on BLM lands and created designated leasing areas (DLAs) for renewable energy. Since 2021, BLM approved 35 renewable energy projects, expecting them to represent 8,160 MW of generation capacity. These projects, however, would only span 23,396 acres, less than one percent of BLM’s total acreage. If BLM allotted its full 870,000 acres to solar DLAs, it could provide enough energy to power over 29 million homes. The BLM has recently proposed several rules to expand renewables establishment, including the Renewable Energy Rule, which would amend the application process and lower rental fees in DLAs. By granting rights-of-way to projects in DLAs, this rule would lead to more efficient project implementation and overcome barriers to transferring federal policy into on-the-ground action. In the case of renewables adoption, maximizing the use of prioritized land for renewables is crucial to reaching energy goals, and streamlining rules to make implementation more efficient will make statutory frameworks more effective. More broadly, this case illustrates the opportunities inherent in promoting rulemaking that can leverage the transformative potential of existing environmental statutes.

 

Promoting Collaboration

Finally, implementing environmental law in a meaningful way requires deep collaboration across governmental scales and jurisdictions. One illustration of this challenge is how many American cities are grappling with questions of how to maximize their ability to achieve climate mitigation objectives while efficiently using resources. One important response to this common challenge is the emergence of climate networks across the U.S., including the United States Climate Alliance. Networked collaboration between cities and other stakeholders enables practitioners to share knowledge, leverage resources, and distill best practices for putting environmental law into action. City climate networks also establish municipal governments as key players who can help to localize national and global climate mitigation measures, and they help to support connected and coherent climate policymaking by jurisdictions that might otherwise regulate in isolation. More broadly, city climate networks exemplify the important, multi-scalar conversations that can allow actors to transcend governmental hierarchies, strengthening and expanding the scope of environmental law.

 

Conclusion

As climate change tests the limits of American environmental law, many of the shortcomings that have appeared suggest opportunities to strengthen its influence and scope. Although individual challenges in environmental law are diverse, ranging from loopholes in fishery management and Supreme Court interpretations to BLM rule implementation and multi-scalar governance, they collectively highlight the range of potential actors and approaches that may support better resolution of environmental challenges. Moreover, while seemingly distinct, the four cases that we present in this article underscore the overarching challenge, and corresponding opportunity, of seeking ways to fully and effectively utilize our existing frameworks in American environmental law and policy.

 

*Contributors:

Alejandra Mendoza: Senior Environmental Studies major, Colorado College

Alexandra Haymons: Senior Organismal Biology & Ecology major, Colorado College

Chase Hetler: Junior Environmental Studies and Political Science double major, Colorado College

Valerie Xiong: Junior Environmental Studies major, Colorado College

EcoPerspectives Blog

The Fad of Ecotourism in India: Discovering Paradise to Creating Purgatory?

By Tejaswini Kaushal, B.A. L.L.B (Hons.) student, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow, India

August 17, 2023

I. Green is the New Black: Analyzing the Boom of Ecotourism

Through the 1900s, the phrase “ecotourism” boomed. It promised sustainable and responsible travel to make people aware and do good for the environment. And as all so-claimed “eco”-friendly things do, it gained significant popularity as a way to experience nature’s wonders while supporting conservation efforts. It garnered praise for raising environmental awareness, sensitizing the next generation, showcasing marginalized communities, preserving endangered cultures, and safeguarding wildlife. India has been one of the biggest benefactors of this trend, and the 2023 Union Budget, coupled with the “Visit India” regime, reflects the government’s continued commitment to empowering this industry.

The World Wildlife Fund defines ecotourism as “responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the environment and promotes the welfare of local people[,]” specifying four essential classifying criteria:

1. Responsible travel to natural areas;
2. Conservation of the environment;
3. Promotion of the welfare of local people; and often
4. Education and interpretation

Now, “ecotourism” has become a misnomer, now representing mere nature tourism lacking its sustainability premise. This leaves us to ponder the question:

II. Will Pseudo-Ecotourism Destroy What it Seeks to Preserve?

Researchers have well-studied the climatic and environmental impact of over-tourism. On this, the CEO of Agoda, an online travel agency in Asia, John Brown, recently commented: “. . . we saw a shift in travel patterns, as people, limited to domestic travel, explore lesser-known areas.” Though this might be a quick fix to decrease overcrowding in the conventional tourist spots, it creates a danger of reducing unobtrusive natural sites to similar travesties. With the increase in demand for ecotourism at such sites, the very premise on which it stands will begin to waver. Owing to the commercial pressures but lacking resources, pseudo-ecotourism emerged, a modified concept that lacks the key sustainability ingredient.

Furthermore, India’s legislative frameworks afford limited protection because of fragmented state-wise tourism policies and the National Ecotourism Policy, 2022 plays a normative function at best. The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 1991, Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006, and Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 become applicable, yet the limitations they face in their respective domains also extend to ecotourism, causing emergence of regulatory gaps. However, the Indian judiciary displays a proactive commitment to environmental conservation. In Nagarahole Budakattu Hakku Sthapana Samithi v. State of Karnataka, the Karnataka High Court ordered the handover of a restaurant building under forest conservation law violations. In Union of India v. Kamath Holiday Resorts Pvt. Ltd., the Supreme Court rejected land leasing rights for a restaurant in a reserved forest, emphasizing environmental priority over tourist convenience.

III. Looking Beneath the Green-Coated Surface

a. From Green to Grey

In Costa Rica, illegal traffickers and curious onlookers have threatened the leatherback turtles back to the brink of extinction. In Mexico, the Biosphere Reserve Sierra Gorda faces excessive logging, fires, and deforestation for tourist housing. Ecotourism initiatives in the Galapagos Islands have attracted migrants seeking employment, resulting in increased pressure on local infrastructure and the environment. In India, the 2013 flash floods in the Kedarnath Valley occurred due to a climate-change-aggravated melting of glaciers triggered by hordes of tourists banking themselves in the mountains yearly. In the Himalayas, a study conducted for ecotourism revealed that locals suffered from increased waste generation and water pollution. These incidents illustrate that ecotourism, despite its environmental claims, often disrupts ecosystems, damages fragile habitats, and degrades natural resources through unregulated footfall, undermining the very attractions it aims to preserve.

b. From Eden to Exploitation

The impact of pseudo-ecotourism on the locals is comparable to or even worse than conventional mass tourism since these irreversibly harm culturally sensitive areas. In Columbia and Indonesia, “green grabbing” is an all-too-common phenomenon with the forcible transfer of land ownership from locals under the “environmentalism'” label. Even India witnesses forest and coastal destruction, displacement of indigenous communities, erosion of traditional values, and exploitation without compensation. Without corrective actions, local communities face marginalization and cultural erosion due to the tourism industry’s lure of ‘environmental opportunism.’ For instance, lifting the alcohol ban in Lakshadweep under tourism pressures stirred concerns about adversely affecting the “social fabric” of the predominantly Muslim community.

c. Hogwashing and Greenwashing

While the surge of eco-consciousness post-1992 Earth Summit led to businesses embracing the “green” tag, it also gave rise to “greenwashing,” which distorts environmental objectives for profit using the right buzzwords. Through misleading advertising of tourism packages’ ecological sustainability, travel agencies often hogwash environmentally-conscious tourists and lure them into seemingly eco-friendly trips. For instance, certification programs have gained prominence to accredit environmental commitments and discern authenticity. Nevertheless, the voluntary and market-driven nature of many of these programs, fueled by presumed consumer demand, raises concerns about their effectiveness. Not only do these create apprehension around large corporates dominating the market through money-power, but also showcases an absent universal certification standard since addressing the complex web of local concerns within an international certification framework proves challenging at the moment.

IV. Preserving Nature’s Playground

a. Carrying Capacity Assessments

Drawing from our neighborhood, Bhutan enjoyed sustainable growth with a protected environment until it followed a controlled tourism policy driven by a “high value, low volume” strategy, but it now faces the threat of regarded culture and nature having shifted to a “high value, low impact” strategy. On the other hand, Maldives achieved sustainability by adopting a carrying capacity standard and a 20% limit on building development in the mid-1990s. These measures were prompted by the detrimental effects of tourism, which led to beach erosion aggravated by hard armoring shores and coral reef degradation due to boating, dredging and commercial mining. India does enjoy a precedent establishing the principle of carrying capacity in Forest Friendly Camps Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, where the court limited park visitors and promoted environmentally, economically, socially, and culturally sustainable tourism activities. However, it was an isolated event lacking transnational impact. Furthermore, despite recognizing the importance of Environmental Impact Assessments and introducing policies in 1994, inconsistent limits and guidelines have prevailed across states and over time.

b. Conservation Impact Funds

Sikkim, India reflects a disparity between the government’s tourism plan and the locals’ desire for greater involvement in tourism management, environment conservation, and benefits-sharing, leading to half-hearted plan implementations. Ecotourism revenue-funded cultural impact funds (“CIFs”) can be a prospective solution to support cultural heritage, habitat restoration, and community development. Allocating a percentage of ecotourism revenue to conservation and CIFs can ensure improved and enthusiastic community participation. Additionally, establishing transparent governance structures to ensure effective allocation and management of these funds and involving local communities, NGOs, and relevant government agencies can further community participation.

c. Enhanced Community Engagement

The Peruvian Tambopata and Infierno native communities protect endangered harpy eagles and scarlet macaws while showcasing them to visitors. This expression of autonomy and proactive engagement by local communities has been facilitated through robust support from both local and governmental entities, empowering them to effectively manage local resources, get incentivized for their contributions, and simultaneously promote tourism. Similarly, granting local autonomy in India and promoting community-based enterprises, dialogue platforms, and fair benefit-sharing guidelines can prevent private players from dominating commercial hotspots and ensure equitable benefit-sharing and decision-making. Developing clear guidelines for benefit-sharing mechanisms to ensure that local communities receive fair compensation for their contributions and reinvesting tourism revenues in community development and conservation initiatives is equally essential.

d. Private Party Collaborations

In Peru, Rainforest Expeditions and the Ese’eja community made a joint tourism venture, with a 20-year contract safeguarding community affairs; prohibiting farming, logging, and hunting; and ensuring 60% of profits and shared decision-making. Adopting a similar balance in autonomy, traditions, wildlife preservation, and sustainable tourism by involving private entities to support local initiatives without replacing them is vital for improved implementation.

e. Boosting Village Tourism

Ecotourism, exemplified by the Sirubari Village Tourism Project in Nepal, thrives on smaller enterprises and boarding facilities, termed “village tourism.” The Project promotes homesteads as accommodations through contracts with locals, in turn benefitting tourists and the local community while reducing the need for additional infrastructure. Promoting such a structure through provisions of financial assistance and subsidies to homeowners, converting houses into bed and breakfast facilities, and marketing them through travel agencies and online platforms will ensure long-term sustainability.

f. Adopting a Culture-Preserving Approach

Increasing tourist demands in Ladakh, India, drives up local goods and water prices, while the demand for Western-standard facilities strains their culture’s sustainability. Highlighting the cultural differences creates awareness among tourists to embrace and sustain the locally abundant goods and cultural practices while avoiding actions that disrupt the local culture.

V. Towards greener Pastures

“Only if we understand, will we care. Only if we care, will we help. Only if we help, shall all be saved.”

– Jane Goodall, conservationist

Ecotourism holds immense potential as a tool for conservation, community empowerment, and sustainable development. However, to harness its benefits and prevent unintended negative consequences, it requires a holistic approach. Governments must enforce stringent regulations, conduct carrying capacity assessments, and invest in infrastructure development. Local communities should be active participants, receiving fair economic benefits while preserving their cultural heritage. With responsible management, ecotourism can be a force for positive change, ensuring that paradise remains intact for generations to come. If adoption of a holistic approach that combines preservation, community empowerment, and sustainable harmony are not done, it will leave behind mere green rhetoric in this quest to distinguish genuine sustainability efforts. India’s future steps will be critical in determining whether its natural environment ascends to the heights of paradise or descends into the depths of purgatory.

EcoPerspectives Blog

Does Pollution End at U.S. Borders? – Why U.S. Military Pollution is a Reason for Agencies to Implement the Global Social Cost of Carbon

By Mariah Bowman, J.D. Candidate, 2024, Pace University Elisabeth Haub School of Law

July 31, 2023

The social cost of carbon (SCC) has been the basis for policies such as tax credits for carbon capture technology and zero-emissions credits. This model can represent a domestic or global scenario of climate damage, but many in the United States favor domestic views only. The question is whether the U.S. should account for global damages from climate change in its SCC modeling based on how their emissions exacerbate that global harm. The short answer is yes, the U.S. should account for the global economy in its SCC policies. Based on the country’s international presence through the military, the U.S. should calculate an SCC that incorporates characteristics of the global economy.

The social cost of carbon is an economic tool used to determine how much the cost is, in dollars, of emitting another ton of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. As carbon dioxide builds up in the atmosphere, it also traps heat surrounding the planet. The damage this heat creates is SCC. In other words, it is the quantitative benefit of reducing one ton of carbon dioxide emissions. Economists and policymakers use SCC to analyze the costs and benefits to environmental policies since carbon emissions are not reflected in market prices. Estimates of economic damages from climate change are approximately $1.7 trillion each year by 2025 and $30 trillion each year by 2075 if the status quo remains unchanged. If the temperature eventually reaches five degrees Celsius, damages will reach an estimated $140 trillion annually and $730 trillion at seven degrees Celsius.

The U.S. military has carried its carbon footprint across the globe for over a century, and because the U.S. is not a party to the Kyoto Protocol, the military does not have to report its emissions. The military may not have to report emissions to global institutions, but its stations across the globe leave an impact. The war in Iraq not only destroyed ecosystems, but also elevated rates of cancer for those living in the area. Additionally, the war in Afghanistan caused mass deforestation, and U.S. armed forces released toxic pollutants into the air, causing sickness in Afghans and U.S. veterans. In total, the “War on Terror” released 1.2 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, which equates to the emissions of 257 million cars each year. If the U.S. military were a nation, it would be the 47^th largest emitter in the world.

The military has an interest in reducing emissions and mitigating climate change because it predicts climate change will exacerbate current security threats or create new dangers. The Department of the Army released its Climate Strategy in February 2022, and the Department of the Navy released its Climate Action 2030. The problem is that these strategies are not required by statute, and their implementation is up to Congress’ discretion. However, the U.S. Department of Defense releases a different report as required by Section 335 of the National Defense Authorization Act that details the vulnerabilities the military faces as climate change-related events become more prevalent. The DoD’s report explains, “DoD is continuing to work with partner nations to understand and plan for future potential mission impacts. This is a global issue and a number of Ministries of Defense across the world are beginning to plan now for future impacts. . . .” The Department of Defense also released its Climate Risk Analysis in October 2021, detailing international effects of climate change, but it fails to explain how the actions of the military exacerbate those effects. Yet, it does include a map of its global aid missions. A government agency acknowledging that the climate crisis is a global issue and planning to work with other nations to address that issue means the U.S. government should be able to employ a global measurement of SCC to account for the effects of climate change in partner countries.

The argument of arbitrariness may be the strongest obstacle to the implementation of the global social cost of carbon. Courts will overturn an agency’s action if it deems it arbitrary and capricious or seen as unreasonable use of discretion. Courts may even see the act of following executive directions without question or review as arbitrary. For agency action to be reasonable, there must be factual and policy determinations, meaning there needs to be a plausible reason for taking that action and supported with facts. If an agency were to implement a global SCC without an explanation, a court would likely find this arbitrary under the Administrative Procedure Act. Even with an agency’s detailed justification for a global SCC, there are still constraints from the courts because “scientific and economic judgments are overridden by purely political considerations.” The global calculation of the SCC may be ruled as arbitrary because measurements of state-specific impacts on climate change are heavily scrutinized due to political tension.

If the executive branch were to argue that a global SCC calculation would solve international tensions and climate change negotiations, this would likely reduce questioning of arbitrariness. Also, accounting for the duty of preventing transboundary harm could be another counter to arbitrariness. Defending an argument against a hard look review of arbitrariness would need to involve deliberation over its merits, scientific evidence, and institutional capacities. While the method of calculating a global SCC is not unanimously agreed on, it is important for agencies to exhaust all techniques for calculating a range of global SCC, so that it creates a strong record to present in court. Administrative obstacles will remain in the way of implementing a global SCC, but the U.S. should maintain its focus on campaigning for a global SCC because of the impact the U.S. military has beyond its own borders.

EcoPerspectives Blog

Seven Years to Midnight?

By Travis Rosenbluth, Staff Editor for the Vermont Journal of Environmental Law

May 2, 2023

In 2014, scientists of the IPCC agreed that human influence on the climate system is evident. It is a milestone that seems insignificant in 2023; however, as we’ve seen most recently in the medical space, getting experts — let alone scientists — to agree on anything seems like a colossal task. Nevertheless, in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), international scientists came to a consensus that, indeed, humans were influencing the world’s climate. Now, almost a decade after AR5 and nine years closer to 2030 (a pivotal year determined by the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement), the old consensus seems to remain but solutions are handicapped. This is a real problem.

More poignantly, this a real problem for up-and-coming Millennial and Gen Z policy makers, environmental lawyers, and activists, all environmentalists (hereinafter, “the Coalition”). Without another new layer of consensus on our situation’s significance, and an achievable goal in mind, any real systematic solution will also be handicapped. This blog post intends to rouse a realignment within the Coalition, one of reasonableness. Some of what is to come may be provocative and contrarian; so, take a breath —but not too deep because the air is full of carbon dioxide.

The main focus is addressing the fatalistic climate of so called “doomerism” that has haunted and captured many young people’s perceptions and activism therein today. We’ve all seen the headlines that this type of theory produces; all one needs to do is google “IPCC warning,” and the news feeds will populate with apocalyptic headlines. These warnings certainly play a part in capturing the awareness of the problem, but for all its capture, the results aren’t as serious. The awareness has increased for sure (which is a good thing). Ask most people, and they will say that we are already living in a catastrophe; just look at the eradication of the coral reefs, the rising sea levels, and melting icebergs.

However, there is hardly any significant legislation passed that one could point to as a real game changer in the fight against climate change (ironically the most significant “environmental bill” to pass through congress recently was the Inflation Reduction Act). Instead, we see things like Greta Thunberg yelling at parliament, and activists are throwing soup on museum paintings. This is the absence of an actual systematic fight to save the environment; in fact, it is an example of helpless activism instead of a reasonable discussion of any strategy. So one must ask, how did we get here?

It is a self-fulfilling and circular equation that we have seen before: identify the problem, make it existential, claim there is only one solution, strawman the side that doesn’t agree, seek uncompromising perfection, get nothing done, the problem continues, and ten years down the road, major contributors are still pumping out GHGs, and no identifiable victories can be shown. Yet where does reasonable consensus come in? Well, there are three camps to this. The two extreme camps highlight the need for the middle camp. The first camp, those who have a blind deus ex machina belief that technology, together with human innovation and ingenuity will save the day, offers nothing reasonable to the debate. The same can be said for the most vocal camp, those who believe that passing the Paris Climate Agreement stated redline is an existential crisis and humans will cease to exist if we do.

A provocateur may say, the argument that the world will be uninhabitable in 2030 as the temperature rises above 1.5º Celsius is as bombastic as the argument that claims, “climate change is a hoax.” The planet will, of course, likely be habitable (caveats included), and humans, in a large capacity, will still be able to live on earth. Regarding policy contribution, if one subscribes to the less reasonable idea that the world will be uninhabitable by 2030 and beyond, there are only two (equally unreasonable) policies: self-preservation or climate-based warfare. We can safely assume that a reasonable public is not voting for the overthrow of the American government and the invasion and conquering of India and China for the sake of roughly 1.2ºC (from their respective emissions). Thus, such existentialism without acknowledging these unreasonable options for achieving certain global temperature rise goals is unproductive and can likely only serve to induce fear.

The lack of consensus building, in addition to a generation of fatalist humans, results in climate based anxiety, fear, and deception, which (in the wrong hands) can be put towards political gain. We’re probably all too familiar with the disingenuous politician who, throughout history, has only ever put forth unrealistic utopian policies, destined to divide or self-destruct. We owe it to ourselves to ask the question of whether the Green New Deal was one such “all-or-nothing” policy and whether there was a more measured and reasonable approach that sowed (even some) progress toward actionable consensus, rather than sowing political division. Similarly, California’s recent executive order to suspend carbon-emitting vehicles may be subject to similar questions and critiques. The cynical argument here is that this is all pandering; both acts allow for the proverbial “can” to be “kicked down the road” toward an overly ambitious and inevitably unattainable goal.

Thus, one must ask, is the assertion that “it gets the conversation going” actually beneficial to the conversation? It has since locked Congress and America in a partisan divide. This gridlock is a natural conclusion when there is not a formidable Coalition with consensus around reasonable, actionable goals. In order to avoid a lost generation amidst a continued lack of reasonable strategy, goals, and merely expecting politicians to pedal ‘silver bullet’ legislation (less likely to pass and more likely to divide), we must demand change.

This change would be a realignment. Any successful social campaign is not won by provocative acts or issuing blame. Rather, such realignment must face harsh truths, evaluate wins and losses, having key figures to promote key initiatives, organized actionable-goals, and realistic negotiation. Yet before all of that, it requires reasonable consensus. Realistic and reasonable ideas can lead to implementation, implementation can lead to momentum, momentum can lead to grander policies, and those policies (if they ever come) can lead to real solutions. Therefore, if we realign our focus reaching a new consensus then we can pivot toward a new reassessment of our collective goals and strive for actionable solutions in our lifetime.

EcoPerspectives Blog

How Can Vertical Farming Solve the Issue of Global Population Increase and Food Scarcity?

By Sai Spoorthi Swamy, Staff Editor for the Vermont Journal of Environmental Law

May 2, 2023

According to the United Nations, the human population will reach 8.5 billion by 2030 and 9.7 billion by 2050. Most of the population increase will occur in developing countries. The drastic increase in population threatens global food security and places pressure on agricultural land. The United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (UNFAO) estimates that food production must increase by 70 percent before 2050. The increase in food production will lead to resource scarcity and volatility. Conventional agriculture requires the consumption of 70 percent global water supply, and half of the world’s population will experience water scarcity by 2030. Current agriculture practices result in 40 percent of crops wasted, which signals that they are unsustainable to meet food demands for the expected population growth in 2030 and 2050. Furthermore, agricultural production has also been impacted by the drastic natural disasters from climate change, which has made agriculture production unreliable, volatile, and vulnerable to crop pests.

Vertical farming is one solution to food scarcity and prevents the volatility in agricultural production caused by climate change. Vertical farming is an agricultural practice that involves producing large quantities of crops in multistory buildings using controlled environmental conditions and nutrients to allow for fast crop growth and planned production. Vertical farming has become popular in recent years. Many countries, such as the United States, Japan, China, Netherlands, Dubai, United Kingdom, and France, have implemented successful vertical farm systems.

Vertical farming has proven to be advantageous. One advantage is that vertical farming systems can operate in cities, allowing for local crop growth. Growing crops locally reduces waste and the energy used to produce and provide food to consumers. In addition, vertically stacked farms are more sustainable, requiring less land and water when compared to conventional farming. For example, vertical farms can yield 10 to 20 times more per acre when compared to conventional farming. Further, vertical farming increases efficiency since it allows crop production year-round. While seasonal changes and geographical locations limit when conventional farmers can grow crops, vertical farming has no such limitations. Growing crops in an indoor, controlled environment also eliminates the need for toxic pesticides or weather resilience, increasing the production of organic produce. Ultimately, vertical farming systems can replace and reduce the risks associated with conventional farming. For example, risks that crops produced by conventional farming are an increase in pests, the spread of diseases, and contamination.

While vertical farming has its advantages, there are also disadvantages. A disadvantage of vertical farming is the cost of construction, specifically the energy and heating costs associated with operating the farm itself. Crop growth in a vertical farming system requires artificial light sources, thus requiring a lot of energy which becomes costly. Along with artificial lighting, vertical farms also require proper ventilation, heating, and air conditioning systems to control humidity which are all expensive. In addition, vertical farming requires dependency on technology, which increases cost and the risk of spoilage from power outages in places like California.

However, ensuring backup generators are available in case a power outage occurs can mitigate this issue. While both vertical and conventional farms are no match for natural disasters like earthquakes, conventional farmers are more vulnerable to natural disasters. This is because natural disasters result in the loss of harvest or livestock and the destruction of agricultural infrastructure and irrigation systems. In comparison, crops and the infrastructure required to produce crops in vertical farms have a layer of foundation that protects them from natural disasters or any outside factor. Furthermore, vertical farming could lead to conventional farmers losing their jobs along the process.

While vertical farming has advantages and disadvantages, it is a promising solution to addressing the drastic increase in global population. Before expanding the use of vertical farming, further research or technological advancement is required to help reduce the high operating costs associated with vertical farming.

EcoPerspectives Blog

In the Midst of Climate Disaster, We Continue to Cater to Big Oil

By Katlyn Schafer, Staff Editor for the Vermont Journal of Environmental Law

May 2, 2023

In one of the world’s most remote areas lies a vast, 23-million-acre petroleum reserve. The National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR-A) makes up the majority of Alaska’s North Slope. Owned and managed by the Bureau of Land Management, this massive petroleum reserve remains largely untouched-but not for long. ConocoPhillips, Alaska’s largest crude oil producer, was just approved to begin construction of an extensive project in the heart of this reserve. The approved “Willow Project” is an $8 billion dollar expenditure that will be the largest oil project the country has seen in decades.

ConocoPhillips is quick to highlight all of the positive impacts the Willow Project will create. Boasting 2,500 construction jobs, 300 permanent jobs, and at least $8 billion in projected revenue, the company frames this project as a “saving grace” to the small communities in the proposed construction area. But the company has not been as forthcoming about the environmental harms expected to follow. The environmental review for the project estimated a release of about 9.2 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually. The expected emissions output is significant and roughly equivalent to putting 2 million extra cars on U.S. roads.

As with any major project, there are pros and cons. Those against the project argue “people over profit,” while supporters assert that the profit ultimately benefits the people. But is creating only 300 permanent jobs worth the global climate catastrophes that will follow from this project’s expected emissions? Why then, did President Biden, who ran his campaign on a promise to end oil and gas leasing on federal lands, approve such a controversial project? Political controversies and fear of litigation may have played a role.

High gas prices continue to place a heavy financial burden on our economy. Between the Covid-19 pandemic, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, oil prices have increased significantly in the last two years. In an attempt to help stabilize supply and demand, President Biden released oil barrels from the U.S. Strategic Reserve, a move that some might say is only “kicking the can down the road,” as the current outlook for oil supply is still grim. Economically, this reasoning makes a strong case in support of the project. The more oil we can produce on our own, the less we need to rely on our unreliable global imports. But at such a critical point in our struggle to mitigate climate change, is more fossil fuel extraction really what we need?

Politics aside, the Biden Administration may have felt forced to approve this project. Anonymous government sources told CNN that the Administration felt as though “their hands were tied.” ConocoPhillips first purchased the lease for the area back in 1999, giving the company a long established and valid lease of the area and its resources. Rejection of the company’s project proposal would have inevitably led to aggressive litigation against the Biden Administration. But the devastating environmental consequences that will come from the millions of tons of emissions expected from the project seem far more threatening than the fear of a possible legal challenge.

The climate around the North Slope has been warming at a rate three times faster than the global average, making it one of the fastest warming areas on the planet. Melting permafrost is already shifting houses, destroying roads, and causing mudslides. Many are being forced to relocate out of areas that their families have lived in for generations, making them among the first climate refugees in the U.S. But it isn’t just the people that are impacted by these rising temperatures. The North Slope provides critical habitat to many species, including caribou, waterfowl, and even polar bears. A number of these species are already threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act, and they all face the threat of a warming climate.

Domestic energy production will be benefitted by the Willow Project. But this approval goes directly against the pledge Biden made under the Paris Agreement to cut U.S. emissions 50% below 2005 levels by 2030. The pledge was already an ambitious and unlikely goal, but constructing the Willow Project now makes it near impossible. Many fear that the project will encourage an increase in drilling sites across the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, leading to more oil extraction, and ultimately greater greenhouse gas emissions.

Not all hope is lost, however. Environmental organizations are already mobilizing against the project, seeking to get an injunction from the courts to stop construction before it can even begin. Earthjustice, in particular, is working on a legal strategy that could not only stop the Willow Project, but any future oil and gas projects as well. Anyone who wishes to help aid in the efforts to stop the progression of the Willow Project can go to the Earthjustice website and either donate to their litigation fund or sign their petition and send a message to the Biden Administration that the approval of this project was a mistake.

EcoPerspectives Blog

Stay Vigilant: Keeping Companies Accountable Under France’s New Corporate Duty of Vigilance Law

By Josie Pechous, Staff Editor for the Vermont Journal of Environmental Law

May 2, 2023

Hungry? Grab a plastic container of Activia yogurt. Thirsty? Open a plastic bottle of Evian water. Dairy-free? Twist the plastic cap off of Silk oat milk. Each of these products is made by one of the world’s top ten plastic polluters: Danone. A French-based company, Danone sells products in over 120 countries and employs over 100,000 people globally. In 2021, Danone increased its plastic use to 750,995 metric tons, roughly equivalent to 75 Eiffel Towers. ClientEarth, joined by Surfrider Foundation Europe and Zero Waste France, is taking Danone to court for its contribution to plastic pollution. The three NGOs contend that Danone failed to comply with France’s recently adopted Corporate Duty of Vigilance Law.

The Duty of Vigilance Law requires France’s largest companies to assess and prevent negative impacts of their supply chains on human rights and the environment. The law applies to any French company with more than 5,000 French-based employees or 10,000 global employees. This covers roughly 100-150 companies. Under the law, companies are responsible for their own direct and indirect activities, as well as the activities of their subsidiaries, subcontractors, and suppliers. The purpose of this law is to mitigate risks in all crevices of the supply chain. The law requires companies to establish, implement, and publish a Vigilance Plan, which must include five components. The five components are: 1) identifying, analyzing, and ranking risks, 2) procedures to assess risks throughout the supply chain, 3) actions to mitigate risks or prevent serious violations, 4) an alert mechanism to report risks, and 5) a monitoring scheme.

ClientEarth is unimpressed with Danone’s efforts on components one, two, and three. ClientEarth asks Danone to do three things: 1) map the impact its plastics have across the supply chain, 2) provide a complete assessment of its plastic footprint, and 3) create a “deplastification” plan with quantified and dated objectives. This request comes after ClientEarth put Danone and eight other large food production companies on notice for inadequately addressing their contribution to plastics pollution. ClientEarth gave the notice in September 2022 and, per the statute, allowed the nine companies three months to remedy their actions. ClientEarth says Danone’s response to the notice “wasn’t good enough,” so it initiated legal action in January 2023. The case now awaits its initial hearing in the Paris Tribunal Judiaire (a French civil court). At this hearing, the judge will decide whether to open the case.

Danone’s 2021 Vigilance Plan comprises of five pages within its 70-page Social, Societal, and Environmental Responsibility policy. Although its Vigilance Plan does not mention plastics, Danone provides specific efforts for combating plastic pollution in the pages before and after its Vigilance Plan. For example, Danone has adopted a circular economy of packaging. This initiative includes: 100% recyclable, reusable, or compostable plastic packaging by 2025; reduce its use of virgin plastic; and increase the proportion of recycled plastic in its packaging. Surfrider, one of the NGOs joining ClientEarth in this case, says Danone’s efforts are unsatisfactory and lack meaningful impact.

Danone refutes the claims against it and recognizes itself as “a pioneer in environmental risk management.” As it stands, Danone’s main strategy to mitigate plastic pollution is to increase the recyclability of its products. But recycling is a false solution. The sad reality is that only 9% of the plastic produced in the last 70 years has been recycled. Plus, Danone has a large presence in many countries who already receive the brunt of the Western world’s plastic excess. In 2022, Danone distinguished itself as the #1 polluter in Indonesia, Spain, and Tunisia.

Interestingly, in February 2022, Danone joined over 100 companies, investors, and business associations in signing a statement urging the European Union to propose mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence legislation. Notably missing from the signatories were any of the other eight companies ClientEarth filed a notice against in September 2022. This fact could work both for and against Danone. On one hand, this demonstrates Danone’s commitment to advancing corporate responsibility, which would undercut ClientEarth’s argument that Danone is complacent in this area. On the other hand, ClientEarth may try to hold Danone to a higher standard by showing its public endorsement of “meaningful action on impacts on people and planet.”

France’s Duty of Vigilance Law represents ones of the first concrete actions in the global momentum towards corporate accountability. In 2021, Germany and Norway adopted similar due diligence laws, with the Netherlands and Finland likely to soon adopt their own. Laws such as these help companies get ahead of potential risks that could otherwise lead to legal, financial, and reputational consequences. That said, the true purpose of these laws is to make it easier for victims to prove when a company fails to act on its promises by requiring companies to publicly identify and mitigate risks. These laws provide a means to bypass the complexity, scale, and influence of large companies that usually hinders parties from achieving justice. Ultimately, these laws empower affected people and communities to hold companies accountable for their environmental impacts.

EcoPerspectives Blog

Potentially Colassal Mistake: The Environmental Ramifications of De-Extinction

By Nicholas Govostes, Staff Editor for the Vermont Journal of Environmental Law

May 2, 2023

Cutting edge company attempts de-extinction of lost species for scientific and financial gain ­- sound familiar? Maybe six movies and several books describing this exact process, the end result, and the subsequent fallout ring a bell? For the non-movie buffs, the Jurassic Park franchise is one of the most profitable and well-known movie franchises of all time, dating back to the first Jurassic Park movie released in 1993. Since then, the franchise has generated millions of dollars from movies, games, and toys and has captured the imagination of several generations. Also, the franchise (theoretically) serves as a warning to those who considered meddling with the forces of nature and genetics—”playing God” so to speak. Unfortunately, it would seem that warning has fallen on deaf ears, particularly those of Colossal Biosciences’ founders and investors.

Colossal Biosciences is a biotech startup based out of Dallas whose mission is to use genetic technology to “de-extinct” previously lost species. While striving to make Earth healthier, Colossal is also aiming to develop new technology and software from this process that can completely revolutionize the science of genomics and provide new avenues for addressing economic concerns and biological conditions. A lofty goal to say the least. To this point, three species are on their de-extinction agenda: the thylacine (Tasmanian tiger), the wooly mammoth, and more recently, the dodo bird. The company has notable investors including life coach and motivational speaker Tony Robbins and billionaire film producer Thomas Tull. They also have institutional partnerships with top universities like Harvard and Cornell, among others. Colossal is currently seeking investors for the dodo bird project, but the estimated $1 billion company seems well on its way to make that project a reality.

To justify this project on the “rewilding” front (the reintroduction of lost species into their natural habitats), Colossal cites to the Yellowstone Wolf Project as proof that such projects can be successful. For context, in the early 1900s, wolf populations in Yellowstone National Park had been virtually eradicated by hunters and the U.S. government. The removal of wolves, along with bears, cougars, and other predators, led to a cascade effect where the elk population grew out of control. As a result, vegetation became more scarce, which caused further harm to other species like beavers and fish. The park lost a keystone species and the food web felt the effects. In 1995, the Yellowstone Wolf Project reintroduced wolf populations into the park. The impacts of the wolves were felt immediately, as elk numbers were quickly brought under control, impaired species were able to bounce back, and the ecosystem became healthier than it had been in decades.

The Yellowstone Wolf Project was a success and premier example of how rewilding can work, but the comparison to Colossal’s project feels misplaced. For one, Yellowstone needed the wolves to bring the ecosystem into balance, whereas here there is no tangible benefit to introducing an old species back into its “old” environment – no ecosystem requires the Tasmanian tiger, wooly mammoth, or dodo bird to bring it back into balance. Although certainly remarkable to see the species returned to… well… being alive, rewilding them would only serve to add another mouth to feed into the food chain of the respective ecosystem, putting pressure on the other species already present. The “new” members of the ecosystem could potentially push food sources to a breaking point and even drive other species to extinction. Also, there is no guarantee a species like the wooly mammoth (gone for roughly 3,700 years) or dodo bird (gone since approximately 1690) would adapt to their new living conditions, particularly in the face of climate change.

While rewilding is presumably not the sole purpose of Colossal’s project, it will be worth monitoring the project going forward to see just how serious they are about reintroducing lost species into their old environments, as well as how quickly they choose to do so. Developing new technology and software for the good of mankind is a noble goal, but the means in which we do so are equally important to consider. By the looks of things, Colossal appears more concerned with the benefits that can be derived from the technology developed for the de-extinction process, not the actual revival of the extinct species. In the words of Dr. Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldbloom): “[Y]our scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn’t stop to think if they should.” Colossal has no trouble thinking that they could de-extinct their selected species. But perhaps they need to rethink whether they should.

EcoPerspectives Blog

Rhino Wars: Attack of the Drones—A New Hope to Stop Poachers

By Robert A. McCormick, Staff Editor for the Vermont Journal of Environmental Law

May 2, 2023

The Javan Rhino is Critically Endangered

It is time to use the dark side—drones programmed with artificial intelligence—against the black-market trade of rhinoceros (rhino) horns. Poachers kill rhinos to sell the horns and make money. Poachers are those who illegally hunt wildlife. The illegal wildlife trade generates approximately $4.5 billion each year.

Poachers have helped decimate various animal and fish populations. Rhinos, in particular, have suffered from illegal hunts. From 2018 to 2021, hunters illegally killed at least 2,707 rhinos. Humans continue to slaughter other creatures, leaving few non-human mammals left. As of 2018, 96% of all mammal biomass was human or livestock for humans.

One rhino population is at greater risk than any other rhino species; the Javan rhinoceros or rhinoceros sondaicus is almost completely extinct. In fact, the World Wide Fund for Nature lists the Javan rhino as the one species facing the greatest threat of becoming extinct. This makes sense given that there are only approximately 76 Javan rhinos alive as of; even “Indonesia’s Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MOEF) estimates the Javan rhino population at 76 individuals in 2022, a small increase over last year’s 75, with one birth and no deaths reported so far this year.” The Javan rhinos have existed in small numbers for many years. By 1967, there were fewer than 30 Javan rhinos left alive. “[T]he Javan rhino was confirmed extinct from the Cat Loc part of the Cat Tien National Park, Vietnam in October 2011.”

According to University of Michigan Museum of Zoology: The historical range of the Javan rhino is believed to have included southeastern areas of Asia. In the past, the Javan rhino ranged from the highest northern parts of Burma and quite possibly extended to present-day eastern Vietnam. However, it is known that the Javan species also inhabited all areas of Sumatra. It was also found in the north and northeastern region of Thailand, extending into Cambodia. It is possible that the rhino’s range included the southern Malaysian peninsula. The rhino once inhabited the majority of the Javan island. The 76 remaining Javan rhinos remain only in The Ujung Kulon National Park.

A New Hope for the Javan Rhino

The Javan rhino population needs extra support to spread its population. We must do all that we can to limit one of the gravest threats facing rhinos—poachers. With only 76 left, the Javan rhino is at severe risk of being wiped off the face of this planet. There is, however, some hope because the number of Javan Rhinos has slowly increased over the years. Still, poachers pose a serious threat to rhinos.

However, there is a New Hope—A.I. drones. Drones with surveillance technology can assist local rangers and communities to collect and analyze data, which can help determine threat areas and organize drone flight plans. For those of you interested, check out the Top 7 Drones to Stop Poaching. Personally, I am a big fan of the Skywalker 1800.

 Analyzing hours of footage from a drone may strain limited resources for some communities. In the fight against poaching, every second counts. Rhino conservationists face a daunting task in protecting these magnificent animals from illegal hunting. That is why rhino conservationists should take after the Department of Defense’s Project Maven. This would incorporate A.I. technology with drones to analyze data about and footage of poachers. By using A.I. algorithms, drones can determine the most efficient flight paths, making it easier for rangers and conservationists to monitor large areas. This is a game-changer in the fight against poaching because it frees up limited resources that can be allocated elsewhere.

Poaching is a serious issue that has had devastating effects on wildlife populations around the world. The Javan rhino cannot afford to be slaughtered from illegal hunting.  With the growing advancements in technology, it is encouraging to see the emergence of new tools and methods to combat this issue.

Help us A.I. Drones; you’re our only hope.