Controversial Wolf Restoration Proposition Passed by Colorado Voters

Image courtesy of Flickr.

By Catelyn Fitzgerald ’23

Staff Writer

On Nov. 3, Colorado voters passed Proposition 114, an effort to restore the state’s gray wolf population. Hunted nearly to extinction in the 1900s, Proposition 114 aims to reintroduce gray wolves into Western Colorado to restore the population to self-sustaining levels as other states have successfully done in the past.

Reintroducing gray wolves in Colorado will play an important role in connecting existing wolf populations in the Rocky Mountain regions above and below the state. The text of the proposition states that bringing wolves back to Colorado “will help restore a critical balance in nature” by helping to complete ecosystem cycles interrupted when the wolf population dropped. 

Wolf restoration projects have garnered a positive reputation among environmentalists due to their success in Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming. After wolves were reintroduced into the park, the subsequent reduction in elk and deer populations allowed willow and aspen trees along riverbanks to recover from overgrazing. As a result, the park’s rivers became more stable, and other animal populations grew in abundance as the natural environment was restored. 

The powerful effect of wolves on the environment comes from their importance as an apex predator or a species at the top of its food chain. This means that any changes to the population of wolves in an area will ripple through the ecosystem. 

Despite the reintroduction of wolves making immediate changes to the park’s environment, other factors such as drought and hunting also decreased the elk population. This means that wolves were not the sole saviors of Yellowstone National Park and that the positive effects of wolf restoration on the environment may not occur in other projects.

According to Proposition 114, the reintroduction of wolves will be restricted to “designated lands,” referring to the area west of the continental divide that runs down the ridge of Colorado’s Rocky Mountains. This region constitutes the rural area of Colorado, with most of the state’s urban population living east of the Rockies, making support for the proposition lie strongly with the state’s urban voters. Ranchers and big game hunters make up the bulk of opposition to the measure due to their concerns over wolves presenting a danger to livestock and creating competition for hunters.

According to Proposition 114, a plan for wolf reintroduction will be formulated based on the “best scientific data available” and regular state hearings, as well as opportunities for public input. The measure also includes an allocation of funds to “assist owners of livestock in preventing and resolving conflicts between gray wolves and livestock” and “pay fair compensation to owners of livestock for any losses of livestock caused by gray wolves.” Colorado has had a higher number of wolf restoration projects than other states, warranting extra consideration from voters about the potential for unwanted contact with wolves.

The potential of wolf-livestock conflict is a major concern for Colorado ranchers. While wolves have been reported to kill livestock at low rates — Colorado State University estimates that under 1 percent of cattle in the Rocky Mountain states are killed by wolves — these killings are often unevenly distributed, meaning that the livestock of a small group of ranchers could become the target of multiple attacks. 

An additional source of controversy surrounding Proposition 114 is its position as an unprecedented method of determining state wildlife policy. The proposition represents the first time that wildlife restoration issues in Colorado have been put in the hands of voters rather than determined by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission. The commission is appointed by the governor and its members come from a variety of backgrounds, from a hunting outfitter owner to an environmental attorney. 

Some opposition to Proposition 114 comes from the belief that wildlife management decisions should be made by those with experience rather than the general public. In 2016, the CPWC rejected a wolf reintroduction proposal based on Colorado not being part of the historic range of gray wolves, the success of other states’ restoration efforts and potential damage to the agriculture and big game hunting industries. 

Donations to campaigns for and against the proposition show the stark differences between the two sides. The Rocky Mountain Wolf Action Fund led the campaign in support of the measure and raised over $1.7 million to help pass the proposition. Many donations to the fund came from environmental groups such as the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council. On the other hand, Stop the Wolf PAC raised over $70,000 in an effort to prevent the proposition from being passed, most of which came from individuals donating small amounts.

Given the divisiveness of the issue, its passage with 51 percent of the vote comes as no surprise. The measure passed by a narrow margin of about 57,000 votes, according to Ballotpedia. Proposition 114 will go into effect in Colorado by the end of 2023, but its results will be seen over the next several decades.

Boston-Based Chemical Company Novomer Develops ECo-friendly Polymer

Pictured above: Eco-friendly Polymers. Photograph courtesy of Pixabay.

By Siona Ahuja ’24  

Staff Writer 

This November, the Boston-based chemical company Novomer launched its newest innovation: Rinnovo, a new class of compostable polymers. Conventionally, plastics are polymers made from carbon and a host of hazardous petrochemicals, and its production is extremely energy intensive, meaning it emits large amounts of CO2. Novomer’s technology produces biodegradable and compostable polymers that use almost half the materials that regular polymers require. The other processing ingredient is waste CO2 –– gas waste that is extracted from industrial processes –– which goes through a process that refines carbon molecules for use in manufacturing. This process, using the company’s trademark technology, Novo 22 Catalyst, enables the creation of “high performing, carbon efficient, cost efficient” material. Because of waste CO2’s affordability, the finished polymer is inexpensive, unlike other bioplastics, some of which can be 20 to 50 percent costlier than normal plastics. 

In an interview with Waste360, Novomer CEO Jeff Uhrig talked about Rinnovo’s compatibility with nature. He explained that their polymers are made from a polyhydroxyalkanoate backbone, which is produced by various organisms like algae. Since these are already found in nature, the ecosystem is prepared to disintegrate the final product following its usage. Its biodegradable nature allows it to reduce aquatic toxicity and waste sent to landfills or incinerators, as is routine with non-biodegradable polymers.  

As with Novomer’s polymers, all biodegradable plastics are less harmful substitutes to plastics made from fossil fuels. They can be used in a wide variety of ways, from packaging to waste collection products. Despite rules and bans against certain non-biodegradable plastic, especially single-use plastic, the production and distribution of biodegradable “bioplastics” is very low. According to a 2018 study, only 4,409,245 tons of plastic, just above 1 percent of global annual plastic manufacturing, is biodegradable. More so, a “bioplastic” label does not guarantee eco-friendliness because there are several issues within this family of polymers. 

The term “bioplastic” can mean plastics made out of natural ingredients like sugarcane or naturally made plastics that are biodegradable. However, not all bioplastics are biodegradable, and they leach toxins into the environment for years. Plastics that do biodegrade can also be made from synthesizing fossil fuel products. A rarer subset of bioplastics are compostable, which can be further segregated into home compostable plastics or industrially compostable plastics, the majority of which fall into the latter category.

Out of the 6.3 billion tons of plastic humankind has mass produced and thrown away since the 1950s, only a meager amount — 600 million tons — has been recycled while the rest lies in landfills, on the soil or in the oceans. 

While biodegradable plastics curb the plastic problem on land to an extent, their biodegradable properties are inefficient in seas. Thick plastics that line coffee cups and cup lids, clear plastic tumblers, drinking straws and other food packaging are expected to act like traditional plastic in seawater and won’t break down at all, severely damaging the marine ecosystem. By the midcentury, researchers expect the amount of plastic in the ocean to overtake the fish.

In addition, littered plastics also cause the decay of plastics into microplastics. In an experiment, Imogen Napper of the University of Plymouth concluded that natural factors like UV rays, sunlight, rain and soil can cause bioplastics to break down into smaller pieces that can cause more harm. Animals can unconsciously ingest these pieces and choke or the pieces can block their digestive tracts, resulting in death. 

In 2015, the United Nations Environment Programme published a report on the misconceptions and concerns regarding biodegradable plastics. It concluded that “the adoption of plastic products labelled as ‘biodegradable’ will not bring about a significant decrease either in the quantity of plastic entering the ocean or the risk of physical and chemical impacts on the marine environment, on the balance of current scientific evidence.” 

Experimental Coral Reef Preservation Strategies Are Underway

Pictured above: Coral reefs.

By Dnyaneshwari Haware ’23

Staff Writer

Despite being out of the eye of the general population, the destruction of reefs is impacting the livelihoods of approximately 1 billion people globally.  These effects are seen through reduced biodiversity, lower fish stocks and a higher rate of coastal erosion. In the past 20 years, 50 percent of coral reefs have been lost, and by 2050, more than 90 percent are expected to die. The causes of this erosion include overfishing, the bleaching of coastlands, an increase in ocean temperature and other exploitative factors that further intensify the damage. In areas of destruction, scientists are attempting new methods of preserving the reefs, such as the relocation of more resilient corals and the new implementation of 3D-printed corals. 

The impacts of global warming have caused increasing challenges for reefs and coral. A large number of reefs are temperature sensitive and struggle to survive 1 degree Celsius above the summer maximum of the region. Additionally, the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide also increases the acidity of oceans, further producing challenging living environments. 

In efforts to revive coral communities, one solution is moving heat resilient corals, which can cope with temperatures between 6 and 7 degrees Celsius hotter and can survive in acidic waters, to struggling reefs elsewhere. However, there are significant obstacles, such as the need to save the thermally resilient species from extinction due to factors other than global warming like physical damage from construction, development and overfishing. Another concern is the introduction of a new species of corals into an ecosystem, which may significantly change its equilibrium. 

Efforts also include more experimental methods, such as integrating 3D printing technology. In 2018, the largest 3D printed coral reef was deployed at a site in Maldives using a technology called the Modular Artificial Reef Structures. These not only substitute real corals for coral farming, which is the cultivation of corals for commercial purposes, but can also create new reef habitats in degraded areas or new locations. However, using artificial structures as restoration tools is expensive and cannot act as a replacement for conservation strategies. 

In environmental conservation, finding local organic solutions that could result in long-lasting positive effects on the community is essential for sustainability. One example is a coral reef restoration project off of a 4.3-mile-long island in Kenya led by the women of the community. According to the Kenya Marine and Fisheries Institute, between  60 and 90 percent of coral reefs were destroyed in some surveyed areas. 

Local communities that largely depend on fishing and ecotourism have suffered from the loss of these reefs, as the reefs provide breeding grounds for hundreds of species of marine life. In response, the women of Wasini Island have been restoring fish populations by cultivating seagrass, which plays a key role in the overall coral reef ecosystem. The seagrass provides shelter to juvenile fish who then mature and move into the reefs. The project also involves building artificial coral reefs using locally found materials such as rock boulders held together with hydraulic cement. Corals grown in nurseries are then planted on these artificial reefs and have a survival rate of 75 percent after transplant.

All these methods involve constant experimentation, and results vary depending on the ecosystems. Law enforcement, the involvement of government and independent agencies, financial support and the cooperation of local communities have been necessary for the largest movements toward the conservation of coral reefs.

Quarantine Continues To Impact the Environment in Unprecedented Ways

by Dnyaneshwari Haware ’24

Staff Writer

In March, when most of the world effectively shut down their industries and economies in response to the global pandemic, there was a sense of panic along with a sense of hope as pollution levels across the globe decreased. Many publications and researchers predicted an improvement in air quality, and videos of aquatic life thriving in the canals of Venice, Italy, went viral, alluding to the presence of cleaner water. However, upon closer observation, these positive environmental effects are more complex than they initially appear. 

A modern person’s lifestyle has been designed for consumption. Consumerism has become an integral part of our lifestyles, festivals, celebrations, sorrows and all other displays of emotion. We have personified things to represent factors like class, comfort and luxury. As a species, humans have limited needs. However, under extreme circumstances like the current pandemic, our needs have increased, swallowing some of our previous wants. According to the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, 42 percent of the U.S. labor force was working full-time from home at the end of June, making internet access and other such amenities a necessity. Because of this, the average consumption of electricity has increased. Commercial and industrial sectors were both found to have experienced decreases of 11 percent and 9 percent, respectively. The consumer electronics industry in particular has major environmental implications as electronic waste is often shipped to developing and less developed countries where limited environmental safety regulations are in place for disposal. Although a growth of about 4 percent was predicted from 2019 through 2020, a report found that COVID-19 has hampered the market and slowed consumerism in this sector. 

Consumption isn’t just restricted to the final goods we consume, but also includes waste generated in the production process. As a result of the pandemic, most of the goods people use are now being delivered, and takeout-only options have increased waste products. Environmental consciousness has largely been sidelined in the decision-making process as many prioritize safety, convenience and affordability. 

Katherine Schmeiser, associate professor of economics at Mount Holyoke, shared her experience of having to choose between the environment and her personal safety. She highlighted that, before the pandemic, many stores had tried to establish a way of reducing waste by placing recycling bins in stores. Now, as in-store populations have drastically reduced, most of them have established delivery services in which they are left with no option but to use more packaging, especially for frozen items. There are still some efforts being made on a small scale in many communities to find effective solutions to this problem. Schmeiser mentioned an organization with local Facebook groups called “Buy Nothing” where people collect leftover packaging as one of the few environmentally friendly options left. Apart from this, a few e-commerce businesses are choosing biodegradable or plant-based packaging, but that makes up a very small percentage of the entire industry. 

This increase in the consumption of electricity, protective gear and essential items is further burdening an already sensitive ecosystem. Large corporations partaking in the encouragement and supply of this consumerism — as well as the lack of enforcement when it comes to policies regarding the conservation and preservation of the environment — are also to blame for the changes climate scientists are beginning to observe.

NEPA and EPA Regulations Relaxed Under Trump Administration Have Environmental Implications

by Catelyn Fitzgerald ’23

Staff Writer

This summer saw the slashing of multiple environmental policies by the Trump administration in an effort to reduce time and costs associated with energy and infrastructure development in the United States. These changes met resistance from environmental groups and became the subject of political controversy. Two environmental regulations that have recently been rolled back are the National Environmental Policy Act and the Environmental Protection Agency’s rule on methane leaks in fossil fuel production.

NEPA is a piece of environmental legislation that requires all major federal actions to be assessed on their environmental, social and economic impact before implementation. “Major federal actions” cover a wide range of activities, from infrastructure projects such as building roads and bridges, to the implementation of federal policies and programs. Under NEPA, all such projects must draft environmental impact statements, explore ways to avoid negative environmental, economic and social impacts, consider long-term effects of the project and identify permanent resources needed to complete the project. These actions required by NEPA have often been criticized for causing unnecessary delays in the execution of projects, as they can be time- and resource-consuming. 

The Trump administration’s new rule changes key definitions within NEPA to reduce its scope in an effort to increase the efficiency of federal projects. The new rule narrows the definition of “major federal actions” to exclude projects that require “minimal Federal funding or minimal Federal involvement.” The definition was previously given a broad interpretation, so the new rule releases many projects from needing to follow NEPA. The new rule also dictates that agencies are only responsible for effects that are “reasonably foreseeable and have a reasonably close causal relationship to the proposed action or alternatives,” meaning that agencies are not responsible for negative effects that would occur in the far future or the indirect effects of their projects.

 Concerns regarding changes to NEPA are not only centered around the potential for negative environmental effects of projects to go unnoticed, but also around the speeding up of project planning that will reduce opportunities for communities to voice their opinions about the projects. As of Aug. 28, more than 20 states, including Massachusetts, have sued the Trump administration over changes to this policy.

Another environmental regulation that has been rolled back is a rule on methane leaks created by the Obama administration. The rule required fossil fuel companies to monitor and repair leaks of methane gas from oil and gas wells. The regulation would have required many oil and gas wells to be retrofitted with the proper technology for methane detection, which is both costly and time-consuming for fossil fuel companies. EPA estimates predict that the rollback will save these companies $100 million through 2030 and lead to 850,000 tons of methane being released into the atmosphere. Methane is a greenhouse gas that stays in the air for less time than other GHGs like CO2, but has 80 times the heat-trapping capability of CO2 during its first 20 years in the atmosphere. The gas is released by energy production plants, landfills and livestock. 

The EPA has also reported that emissions from methane leaks have stabilized in recent years, meaning that the regulation may not necessarily have a significant impact on emissions, but these reports have been challenged by data collection within the scientific community. Recent findings are in agreement that atmospheric methane levels are higher than what was previously reported by the EPA. Discrepancies between EPA and independent data collection come from the EPA’s use of a mix of self-reported data from fossil fuel companies and on-site testing of methane leaks. The discovery of higher-than-expected methane levels means that policies aiming to curb emissions of the gas are more important than ever in slowing the onset of climate change. 

Major fossil fuel companies have decided to continue following the regulation in order to avoid damaging their public image and aid in their promotion of natural gas as a “green” alternative to oil. If natural gas were to be associated with high amounts of methane emissions, it would undermine companies’ efforts to promote it. 

The methane rule was part of a set of three regulations created by the Obama administration in an attempt to slow climate change. The others targeted CO2 emissions from cars and coal burning and have previously been rolled back by the Trump administration.

“A Blowtorch Over Our State”: Climate Change’s Connection To West Coast Wildfires

Photo by by Anya Gerasimova '21 in Salem, Oregon

by Siona Ahuja ’24

Staff Writer

Apocalyptically orange skies in California, Oregon and Washington mark a full month of forest fires raging across most of the West Coast. Beginning on Aug. 17, the “August Complex” fire is one of the largest and most destructive blazes of the 20th century. More than 3 million acres have burned in California alone, as opposed to the estimated 300,000 which burn in the average annual fire season. In addition, experts say the fire season is yet to reach peak season activity. Ireland Clare Kennedy ’21, a resident of Oakland, California, said she has witnessed many wildfires over the years, but has “never seen one this bad.”

Exacerbation of the fires has been attributed to the intense heat wave that struck California in early September, with temperatures reaching 113 F (45 C). The flora of America’s western states are extremely dry during this period, making them susceptible to large fires. Generally, dry lightning storms or even small triggers like discarded cigarettes can turn thousands of trees into ash. This year, a gender reveal party gone disastrously wrong is said to be the major cause. 

In the El Dorado Ranch Park, a couple decided to reveal the sex of their baby using a pyrotechnic device (a smoke bomb rocketing blue or pink smoke). Unknown to them, the wild grass was very flammable, and this mishap led to the blaze of 10,000 acres and more than 20,000 people being evacuated from their residences.

Typically, the fire season in California and neighboring states occurs between July and November, when the winds are hot and dry. Wildfires are a natural part of forests as light fires (“light” being the key word) are beneficial to growth because the ashen remains provide high nutrients to the soil, thus yielding high quality crops. Light fires also aid in the growth of more fire resistant trees. Plants are not harmed in the process of light fires, as their roots remain viable for new plants to sprout in the winter.

Using this logic, Indigenous tribes practiced “cultural burning” in the pre-20th century era. “What we’re doing here is restoring life,” said Ron Goode, tribal chairman of the North Fork Mono, in an interview with NPR. However, beginning in the early 1900s, this practice of fighting fire with fire was banned by the government. Instead, the policy of fire suppression, in which chemical agents were used to extinguish the fires, was adopted. It caused forests to miss their fire cycles; trees grew densely; and the shrubs formed thick undergrowth and ultimately led to vast blazes.

The ancestral practice is slowly resurfacing as fires are getting increasingly uncontrollable. Tribal chiefs are partnering with state governments to carefully burn trees and minimize the risk of extensive wildfires. In Northern California, the Karuk and Yurok tribes are joining the Forest Service to oversee land with traditional values and wildfire management, two goals that work hand in hand.

COVID-19 has presented unique challenges which have been further exacerbated by the spreading wildfires. Among the worst struck by the pandemic are farmers, who have suffered an economic blow since March. In the past year, agriculture has set a record rate of bankruptcies and mental health crises. The fires have sent many crops blazing, and low visibility from fire-caused air pollution has made working on farms almost impossible. The unhealthy air quality caused by the smoke and ash also puts sensitive groups at risk for contracting the virus and compounds the symptoms of those who have tested positive. Moreover, those who are being evacuated to escape the blazes are compelled to go to crowded sites, where social distancing is impossible.

Massive levels of smoke and billowy ash have forced people to seek refuge in their houses just as they were beginning to navigate the outdoors after months of quarantining. Being cooped up has adversely impacted the mental health of many. 

“You can barely see the sun,” said Alexa Harbury ’24, who lives in Tigard, Oregon. “For the whole of last week it was hard to tell what time of day it was, because everything just looked yellow or orange. It messed up my sleep schedule because I couldn’t feel when I needed to get up in the morning. Plus, it’s been stressful. We know people who are in evacuation areas and are keeping a close eye on any fire related news.”

Climate change has been declared as the primary factor that is fueling such disasters. Scientists and policymakers have revealed that an average global increase of 1 C is likely to raise the burning area by 600 percent. The governor of Washington, Jay Inslee, describes climate change as a “blowtorch over our state.”

By emitting millions of tons of greenhouse gases, industries around the world are contributing to the warming of the planet. Estimates from the World Meteorological Organization predict that a global temperature rise of 1.5 C will cause extreme changes in weather such as floods, storms and heat waves which inevitably cause more deaths. The oddities have already begun, ranging from the Australian bushfires that lasted seven months to green-colored snow in Antarctica caused by algae blooms. Scientists indicate that these are just mere forewarnings of what is about to come in the next decade. Should we not contribute to climate reform, there will be irreparable damage caused to an already unstable Earth, they warned.