Cancer Lawsuits Allege EPA-Monsanto Collusion - A new court filing made on behalf of dozens of people claiming Monsanto's Roundup herbicide gave them cancer includes information about alleged efforts within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to protect Monsanto's interests and unfairly aid the agrichemical industry. The filing , made late Friday by plaintiff's attorneys, includes what the attorneys represent to be correspondence from a 30-year career EPA scientist accusing top-ranking EPA official Jess Rowland of playing "your political conniving games with the science" to favor pesticide manufacturers such as Monsanto. Rowland oversaw the EPA's cancer assessment for glyphosate , the key ingredient in Monsanto's weed-killing products, and was a key author of a report finding glyphosate was not likely to be carcinogenic. But in the correspondence, longtime EPA toxicologist Marion Copley cites evidence from animal studies and writes: "It is essentially certain that glyphosate causes cancer." Attorneys for the plaintiffs declined to say how they obtained the correspondence , which is dated March 4, 2013. The date of the letter comes after Copley left the EPA in 2012 and shortly before she died from breast cancer at the age of 66 in January 2014. She accuses Rowland of having "intimidated staff" to change reports to favor industry, and writes that research on glyphosate, the key ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup, shows the pesticide should be categorized as a "probable human carcinogen." The International Agency for Research on Cancer, an arm of the World Health Organization, declared as much—that glyphosate was a probable human carcinogen —in March 2015 after reviewing multiple scientific studies. Monsanto has rejected that classification and has mounted a campaign to discredit IARC scientists.
Farmers in 10 States Sue Monsanto Over Dicamba Devastation -- Farmers across 10 states are suing Monsanto , alleging that the agrochemical company sold dicamba-tolerant cotton and soybean crops knowing that illegal spraying of the highly volatile and drift-prone herbicide would be inevitable. Steven W. Landers et al. v. Monsanto Company was filed on Jan. 26 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Southeastern Division. Kansas City law firm Randles & Splittgerber filed on behalf of Steven and Deloris "Dee" Landers and similarly harmed farmers in 10 states —Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Tennessee and Texas. The farmers seek damages for claims including negligence, strict liability, failure to warn, conspiracy, disgorgement of profits and punitive damages. According to a press release from the law firm, Steven and Dee Landers operate their family owned farms in New Madrid County, Missouri, and have been in business since 1976. The Landers claim that their farms have been greatly damaged by the illegal spraying of dicamba on Monsanto's Roundup Ready Xtend crops, which are genetically engineered to resist dicamba and Roundup (aka glyphosate). Bev Randles of Randles & Splittgerber told EcoWatch that the Landers' 1,550-acre farm primarily grows soybeans and corn. In 2016, they experienced dicamba damage on more than half of their crops and acreage, resulting in a reduction of their yields in approximately the same percentage, especially with respect to their soybeans. The farmers in the lawsuit allege that the biotech giant knowingly marketed its Xtend cotton and soybean seeds to farmers without any safe herbicide. The lawsuit claims that the company knew the only option purchasers would have to protect crops grown from those seeds would be to illegally spray dicamba to protect the crops from weeds. "Monsanto chose to sell these seeds before they could be safely cultivated," said Randles. "Monsanto's own advertising repeatedly describes its Xtend seeds and its accompanying herbicide as a 'system' intended to be used together. But when Monsanto failed to get approval to sell the herbicide, it recklessly chose to go ahead and sell the seeds regardless."
Golden Rice – A Supreme Hoax, Part of A Supreme Crime - The program to breed a commercially deployable version of “golden rice” continues its perfect record of failure. In the latest screw-up, an attempt to back-cross a GM rice variety with a conventional Indian variety resulted in a crop with reduced yield, stunted growth, and growth abnormalities. The authors of the new study documenting this result blame the effects on transgenic interference with the plant’s growth hormones. Worse, the transgene is fully active not just in the rice grains as “intended”, but in the leaves as well. This resulted in reduced photosynthetic ability.These visible effects had not manifested in the GM variety. Therefore the engineers assumed the transgenic effect was “stable”, and that this stability of transgenic effect could be taken for granted throughout the process of back-crossing the transgene into the Swarma variety, perfecting this Indian version of golden rice, increasing the seed, and commercially deploying it.This is typical of how GMOs are developed. The entire process, from tissue culture to seed increase, focuses only on whether the crop visibly seems to meet commercial standards. That’s the full extent of the quality control and safety testing. It’s the same as how all alleged safety tests in the lab really have been tests of nothing but whether CAFO inmates can reach their slaughter weight being fed grain from the crop. This and similar industrial parameters comprise the sum total of the “safety tests” performed by corporations, accepted by regulators, and touted by regulators and media. The same paradigm applies to agronomic testing. Therefore it’s no surprise that under new conditions, conditions not as controlled as the laboratory greenhouse, GMOs often break out with completely unexpected deficiencies, sicknesses, and crop failures. This is especially true under real world agronomic conditions.
Judge to FDA: Agency Must Pull Aside Curtain on GE Salmon -- A U.S. District Court judge took the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to task on Jan. 10 for withholding government documents related to the agency's approval of genetically engineered (GE) salmon . The judge's decision is a big win for public transparency, but it's also a small step toward finally doing a proper evaluation of the risks posed by GE animals—which could one day end up on our dinner plates. In 2015, the FDA approved GE salmon made from the DNA of three different animals: Atlantic salmon, deep water ocean eelpout, and Pacific Chinook salmon. The GE version is intended to grow faster than conventional farmed salmon, reportedly getting to commercial size in half the time. Even though this is the first time any government in the world has approved a GE animal for commercial sale and consumption, so far the FDA has taken a lackadaisical approach to evaluating the salmon's potential for harm to wild salmon and the environment. If the GE salmon were to escape , it could threaten wild salmon populations by outcompeting them for scarce resources and habitat, by mating with endangered salmon species, and by introducing new diseases. The world's preeminent experts on GE fish and risk assessment, as well as biologists at U.S. wildlife agencies charged with protecting fish and wildlife, heavily criticized the FDA for failing to evaluate these impacts. But the FDA ignored their concerns, so in March 2016, Earthjustice filed a lawsuit against the agency. As part of the lawsuit, the FDA is required to compile a record of documents that illuminate the path the agency followed to reach its decision to approve the GE salmon—much like a student is required to show their work for a math problem in middle school. A complete record is essential in all cases. But it is especially important here because the FDA has so far refused to release most of the documents related to its decision, despite repeated requests for that information from EarthJustice's diverse set of clients under the Freedom of Information Act.
China closes live poultry markets amid deadly flu outbreak - China is ordering the closure of live poultry markets in its south-central regions as it grapples with the worst outbreak of bird flu in years that has killed at least 87 people. State media reported Friday that the National Health and Family Planning Commission ordered closures anywhere with cases of the H7N9 strain. Most reported cases have been found in the densely populated Yangtze and Pearl river deltas from Shanghai to Hong Kong. Those areas generally experience mild, wet winters that are ideal for the virus transmission. In all, more than 250 cases have been reported from 16 provinces and regions, including as far away as the southwestern province of Yunnan. The death toll since the start of the year has been unmatched since at least 2013. In addition to the market closures, the commission is training health workers in the screening, early diagnosis and treatment of the disease, while urging people to avoid contact with live birds. H7N9 is considered to be less virulent than the H5N1 strain that the World Health Organization has linked to hundreds of deaths worldwide over the last decade. H7N9 is not believed to be transmitted between humans, but rather by infected poultry. China has gained extensive experience in dealing with such crises since being hit by the 2003 SARS outbreak that was believed to have originated among animals in southern China. A preference among Chinese for live-bought, freshly-slaughtered poultry complicates the government's efforts to eradicate such diseases.
Commuters warned of new air pollution risk - Travelling by public transport exposes commuters to up to eight times as much air pollution as those who drive to work, a groundbreaking study found. In the latest evidence of the health risks posed by rising traffic levels, researchers found that drivers commuting in diesel cars did the most harm to the wellbeing of other travellers — producing six times as much pollution as the average bus passenger. The authors said that the results revealed a “violation of the core principle of environmental justice” because those who contributed most to air pollution in cities were least likely to suffer from it. People in poorer areas, who are more reliant on buses to get to work, suffer greater exposure than those in wealthier neighbourhoods, who are more likely to commute by car, according to the study by the University of Surrey. Air pollution causes 40,000 premature deaths a year in Britain and diesel vehicles are a large contributor to the problem, producing high levels of particulates and toxic nitrogen oxides, which can cause respiratory disease and heart attacks. Of Britain’s 5.4 million asthma sufferers, two thirds say that poor air quality makes their condition worse. The government will publish a plan in April for tackling air pollution after the previous one was ruled inadequate by the High Court. The latest study involved commuters wearing air pollution monitors who undertook hundreds of journeys by car, bus and Tube. Bus passengers were exposed to concentrations of particles, known as PM10, which were five times higher than those experienced by car commuters. Levels of PM2.5 fine particles, which can be more lethal as they are drawn deep into the lungs, were twice as high on buses as in cars. Bus journeys were typically 17-42 minutes longer than car journeys, meaning that bus passengers were exposed to higher levels of pollution for longer. Motorists tend to keep windows closed and are protected by filters stopping particles and dust from entering the interior. Bus passengers, by contrast, are subjected to pollution at stops when the doors are opened, often in places where queues of idling vehicles are pumping out high levels of toxic gas and particles. Diesel buses on average produce three times as many particles per mile as diesel cars but they typically carry 20 times as many people.
India’s Air Pollution Rivals China’s as World’s Deadliest -- India’s rapidly worsening air pollution is causing about 1.1 million people to die prematurely each year and is now surpassing China’s as the deadliest in the world, a new study of global air pollution shows. The number of premature deaths in China caused by dangerous air particles, known as PM2.5, has stabilized globally in recent years but has risen sharply in India, according to the report, issued jointly on Tuesday by the Health Effects Institute, a Boston research institute focused on the health impacts of air pollution, and the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation, a population health research center in Seattle. India has registered an alarming increase of nearly 50 percent in premature deaths from particulate matter between 1990 and 2015, the report says. “You can almost think of this as the perfect storm for India,” said Michael Brauer, a professor of environment and health relationships at the University of British Columbia and an author of the study, in a telephone interview. He cited the confluence of rapid industrialization, population growth and an aging populace in India that is more susceptible to air pollution.
Breathless in Bakersfield: is the worst air pollution in the US about to get worse? - The bluffs on Panorama Road offer a wide view of the northern half of Bakersfield, which is one of the few major population centres in California’s Central Valley. On a clear day, the state’s dominant topographical features put the landscape, and one’s place in it, in sobering perspective. But clear days don’t happen all that often in Bakersfield. Emissions from agriculture, industry, rail freight and road traffic together create one of the country’s worst concentrations of air pollution – a condition exacerbated by geographic and climatic conditions that trap dry, dirty air over this southern section of Central Valley like the lid over a pot. Oil fields make up most of the view from the top of the bluffs, and the scent of petroleum is often detectable around the city. Dairies populated by hundreds of thousands of cows are scattered throughout the region, and their smell, too, is hard to miss. Massive warehouses and distribution centres on the outskirts of town bring in diesel trucks day and night from Interstate 5, the major north-south route that runs from Canada to Mexico (Los Angeles is about 100 miles to the south). Freight trains hauling oil rumble through the city, and its many refineries billow smoke into the air. Bakersfield and surrounding Kern County are the unlucky nexus of this pollution. The American Lung Association’s State of the Air 2016 report found the city’s air to be the worst in the United States for short-term and year-round particle pollution, and the second worst for ozone pollution. The WHO’s latest ambient air pollution database ranks nearby Visalia-Porterville worst in the US. Bakersfield’s average reading in one 24-hour period in late January was 40.5 micrograms per cubic metre; over the mountains in somewhat smoggy Los Angeles, that number averages about 12. Of the wider metro area’s 875,000 people, about 70,000 are said to have asthma, 40,000 cardiovascular disease, and 27,000 chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Though some improvements have been made in recent years, the region continues to struggle with poor air quality and the health problems it brings. Now the election of Donald Trump to the presidency, and his appointment of an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) head in Scott Pruitt who is actively opposed air quality regulations, has many worried that the small but steady improvements to the area’s air quality may all be undone.
DuPont Settlement of Chemical Exposure Case Seen as 'Shot in the Arm' for Other Suits - A $671 million settlement announced Monday between DuPont Co. and lawyers representing thousands of people in Ohio and West Virginia could bring a swift end to years of litigation there, while fueling cases in other states where people have alleged health problems after a chemical used to make Teflon got into their drinking water. The proposed settlement, which needs to be approved by individual plaintiffs, comes amid growing concern over the potential effects of perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, on drinking-water quality and health. It also comes as a range of other hazards to the nation's aging drinking-water infrastructure, from lead pipes to farm runoff to the presence of other industrial chemicals, gain widespread attention. In New York, Vermont and elsewhere, state investigations have found high levels of PFOA in water systems near current and former manufacturing sites where companies used the chemical for decades to make everything from Teflon frying pans to Gore-Tex waterproof jackets to pizza boxes. The DuPont settlement could provide a boost to other PFOA lawsuits that have sprung up against other companies in New York and other states, experts said Monday. But the experts also said that the facts in those cases, including the actions taken by companies and alleged health problems, would ultimately determine their outcome. "The fact that DuPont was willing to put up real money for settlement of these claims has to be a shot in the arm for plaintiffs' lawyers pursuing similar claims elsewhere," said Howard Erichson, a law professor at Fordham University School of Law. He cautioned that residents had yet to approve the settlement in principle between lawyers representing them and DuPont. Monday's settlement covers roughly 3,500 personal injury lawsuits against DuPont that grew out of an original lawsuit in 1999. Residents alleged that DuPont was negligent in allowing PFOA from its plant in Parkersburg, W.Va., to taint drinking water when the company knew for years about the contamination and potential health risks from PFOA exposure.
Will bioplastics repeat the biofuels saga? --The bioplastics market is growing rapidly, and EU lawmakers are taking the first steps towards regulating it. But bioplastics are already damaging the environment, and the pressure is on the Parliament and the Commission to not repeat the mistakes of the biofuels saga. In January, MEPs voted to promote bio-based plastics in packaging as part of their review of the waste directives. The European Commission also dipped its toes into the regulatory waters by publishing a roadmap ahead of its Plastics Strategy, which will focus on shifting plastics production away from fossil fuels. It is vital that they get it right before the market grows even larger. But what exactly are the problems with bioplastics? Your local café has probably started selling food and drinks in biodegradable or compostable packaging. They promote their “green” and “sustainable” credentials. Customers are happy and believe they are doing the planet good. Green sells. Like biofuels, the idea behind bioplastics seems simple: the oil used to make them is derived not from fossil fuels, but is instead produced by plants. A classic example is the Coca-Cola PlantBottle, which is made from 30% sugarcane ethanol, and which the company claims has “helped boost sales” and “can be used as an effective marketing tool.” Unfortunately, the green credentials of bioplastics are far from straightforward. The term “bioplastic” is complex, and difficult to explain on a bottle label. There are bioplastics which are “bio-based,” i.e., partly or fully made from plant biomass, and which can be designed to be biodegradable, recyclable, or neither. To make matters even more complicated, even “biodegradable” doesn’t mean what it sounds like here – biodegradable plastics only break down quickly when processed by specialised industrial equipment; throwing them in the compost at home won’t work. There are also bioplastics which are fully oil-based but are biodegradable.
Trump administration sued over protection for vanishing bumble bee | Reuters: An environmental group sued U.S. President Donald Trump's administration on Tuesday for delaying a rule that would designate the rusty patched bumble bee as an endangered species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, a branch of the Interior Department, in September proposed bringing the bee under federal safeguards. The rule formalizing the listing of the vanishing pollinator, once widely found in the upper Midwest and Northeastern United States, was published in the Federal Register on Jan. 11 and was to take effect last Friday. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) said the listing has been delayed until March 21 as part of a broader freeze ordered by Trump's White House on rules issued by the prior administration aimed at protecting public health and the environment. The group argued in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York that U.S. wildlife managers had violated the law by abruptly suspending the bumble bee listing without public notice or comment. They said the rule technically became final when it was published in the Federal Register. The lawsuit seeks to have a judge declare that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service acted unlawfully and to order the agency to rescind the rule delaying the bumble bee's listing.
Beetles Have Killed 5 Million Acres Of Colorado Forests (And Counting)― Two different species of tiny beetles have destroyed more than 5 million acres of Colorado forests, according to a new report. The mountain pine beetle, a native insect that burrows into and kills primarily lodgepole, ponderosa, Scotch and limber pines, has damaged about 3.4 million acres, the Colorado State Forest Service said in its annual report released Wednesday. The spruce beetle is responsible for taking out another 1.7 million acres. The insects, which are each barely half a centimeter long, thrive on weakened trees ― meaning the dense, mature, drought-plagued forests of Colorado are a perfect target for them. It’s likely the threat they pose will only increase: Climate models predict that Colorado, which has already warmed 2 degrees in the last 30 years, will warm between 2.5 and 6.5 degrees Fahrenheit by 2050. The pine beetle epidemic began in 1996 and peaked in 2008, slowly tapering off as the beetles ran out of mature pine trees to infect. Overall, Colorado’s forests have seen a 30 percent increase in dead trees in the last seven years, for a total of around 834 million trees. That’s about 1 in every 14 trees in the state, notes Colorado State University. The CSFS is an agency affiliated with the university’s Warner College of Natural Resources. Those dead trees will present a number of problems moving forward, and come with an increased risk of massive forest fires.
Famine fears rise as Somalia suffers worst drought in decades -- Amina Jamila has been locked in a battle for survival for months. When her family’s 400 goats and camels started dying in droves after rains failed for the third consecutive year, she and her husband trekked 30 kms with their five children and few remaining animals across an arid, featureless region of Somalia. The pastoralists now live in a homemade shelter built of sticks and tarpaulins in a camp that is home to 450 families and growing every day as more people seek sanctuary from Somalia’s worst drought in decades. Animal carcases litter the landscape around the makeshift homes in Uusgare, a village in Puntland region. “If it wasn’t for the help of friends and family some of us would be dead,” Ms Jamila says. “We are used to dry conditions but we’ve never seen anything like this before.” Elders at the camp say the conditions are the driest since the 1950s and they have called the drought Lagamalito, which means “the worst” in Somali. More than half of Somalia’s 12m population are in need of assistance, with 2.9m at serious risk of famine if rains due in April are not better than average, the UN warns. That number is rising by the week as people’s animals, in most cases their only assets, die in front of them. “Most people here have lost about 90 per cent of their livestock,” says Abshir Hirsi Ali, a village chief. “For the pastoralists that means they’ve lost everything.” About 260,000 Somalis died during the last famine five years ago, and the Red Cross is already reporting drought-related deaths in northern parts of the country. The number of severely malnourished children referred last month to the stabilisation centre at the main hospital in Garowe, Puntland’s capital, is 70 per cent higher than a few months ago, medics say. One diplomat says sometimes only one-eighth of the aid reaches its target. Aid agencies are already warning that conditions risk deteriorating because of poor rains. The situation is exacerbated by the threat posed by al-Shabaab, a militant Islamist group with ties to al-Qaeda, which controls some of the worst-affected areas.
Four Famines Mean 20 Million May Starve in the Next Six Months - More than 20 million people – greater than the population of Romania or Florida – risk dying from starvation within six months in four separate famines, UN World Food Programme chief economist Arif Husain says. Wars in Yemen, northeastern Nigeria and South Sudan have devastated households and driven up prices, while a drought in East Africa has ruined the agricultural economy. “In my not quite 15 years with the World Food Programme, this is the first time that we are literally talking about famine in four different parts of the world at the same time,” he told Reuters in an interview. “It’s almost overwhelming to comprehend that in the 21st century people are still experiencing famines of such magnitude. We’re talking about 20 million people, and all this within the next six months, or now. Yemen is now, Nigeria is now, South Sudan is now,” he said. “Somalia, when I look at the indicators in terms of extremely high food prices, falling livestock prices and agricultural wages, it’s going to come pretty fast.” The global humanitarian system is already struggling with a historic surge in migration, huge operations in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, and serious situations in Ukraine, Burundi, Libya and Zimbabwe. “Then you have places like Democratic Republic of Congo, Central African Republic, Burundi, Mali, Niger, where people are chronically food insecure but… there’s just not enough resources to go around.”
Climate Change Is A Far Bigger Threat To Wildlife Than We Thought, Study Says | The Huffington Post: Climate Change Is A Far Bigger Threat To Wildlife Than We Thought, Study Says -- A global analysis of Earth’s threatened and endangered species has upended our scientific understanding about the extent to which climate change is affecting wildlife. “We are massively underreporting what is going on,” James Watson, a co-author of the new study and director of science and research initiatives at the Wildlife Conservation Society, told The Huffington Post. The research, published Monday in the journal Nature Climate Change, estimates that 47 percent of mammals and 23 percent of birds on the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s Red List of Threatened Species have been negatively affected by our changing planet. Those estimates are shockingly higher than previous assessments, which the authors note had shown 7 percent of listed mammals and 4 percent of birds were affected. The report adds to an ever-growing body of evidence that swift action is needed to tackle a phenomenon that’s driving a biodiversity crisis, sea-level rise, drought and extreme heat. Elephants were among the most vulnerable to climate change effects, the study found. For the analysis, a team of researchers from Australia, Italy and Britain combed through all relevant studies published from 1990 to 2015 that documented a species that was affected or not by changes in climate. For each of those more than 2,000 species, the authors categorized the effect as negative, positive, unchanged or mixed. Of the 873 mammal species looked at, 414 were hurt by climate change, with elephants, primates and marsupials among the most vulnerable. For threatened birds, 298 of 1,272 species are experiencing negative effects, with waterfowl and birds who live at high altitudes being among the hardest hit, according to the findings. Of course, effects vary greatly for each species. Overall, though, it’s clear that many more animals are in trouble than had been thought. And given that the analysis looked only at mammals and birds, which are by far the most studied species but represent only a small percentage of the biodiversity on Earth, the problem could be far worse than the findings suggests, according to Watson.
House Passes NRA-Backed Bill Legalizing the Killing of Bear Cubs in Wildlife Refuges - The Republican-sponsored legislation was introduced by Alaska Rep. Don Young and was supported by the National Rifle Association (NRA) and a number of hunting groups . House Joint Resolution 69 (H. J. Res. 69), citing authority under the Congressional Review Act, would rescind U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rules enacted in August that are meant to maintain a sustainable population of native Alaskan wildlife. But on the House floor, Young said his measure was about overturning "illegal" Obama administration rules and ensuring the "right of Alaskans and the right of Alaska to manage all fish and game." He claimed that special interest groups were spreading "falsehoods" and "propaganda." "They talk about killing [wolf] puppies and grizzly bears," Young said. "That does not happen nor, in fact, is it legal in the state of Alaska under our management." Opponents argue that if the measure becomes law, it would allow the use of "inhumane" hunting tactics such as:
Killing black bear cubs or mother with cubs at den sites
Killing brown bears over bait
Trapping and killing brown and black bears with steel-jaw leghold traps or wire snares
Killing wolves and coyotes during denning season
Killing brown and black bears from aircraft
"This bill allows the use of inhumane tactics such as trapping, snaring, and baiting bears, and killing wolves and coyotes—and their pups. It even allows shooting bears from helicopters," said Rep. Betty McCollum, a Democrat from Minnesota, who voted "No" on the resolution. "As a strong advocate for our public lands and natural treasures, I will continue to fight extreme proposals like this that erode bedrock conservation laws and expose animals to abuse." "Killing hibernating bears, shooting wolf pups in their dens, and chasing down grizzlies by aircraft and then shooting them on the ground is not the stuff of some depraved video game," After Thursday's vote, the bill is now up for possible consideration in the Senate.
India’s militant rhino protectors are challenging traditional views of how conservation works -- In Kaziranga, a national park in north-eastern India, rangers shoot people to protect rhinos. The park’s aggressive policing is, of course, controversial, but the results are clear: despite rising demand for illegal rhino horn, and plummeting numbers throughout Africa and South-East Asia, rhinos in Kaziranga are flourishing. Yet Kaziranga, which features in a new BBC investigation, highlights some of the conflicts that characterise contemporary conservation, as the need to protect endangered species comes into contact with the lives and rights of people who live in and around the increasingly threatened national parks. India must balance modernisation and development with protections for the rights of local people – all while ensuring its development is ecologically sustainable.To understand what’s at stake in Kaziranga, consider these three crucial issues:
1. The militarisation of conservation. The BBC feature shows park rangers who have been given the license to “shoot-on-sight” – a power they have used with deadly effect. In 2015 more than 20 poachers were killed – more than the numbers of rhino poached that year. The programme accuses the rangers of extra-judicial killings of suspected rhino poachers. This resonates with a wider trend in the use of violence in defence of the world’s protected areas and the growing use of military surveillance technologies to support the efforts of conservation agencies.
2. The rights of local and indigenous populations. The BBC story also points to the growing conflict in and around Kaziranga between the interests and rights of local and indigenous people and the need to protect threatened species. Groups including Survival International – which features in the BBC story – claim that well-meaning conservation projects have denied and undermined the rights of indigenous groups around the world. The group calls for these rights to be placed at the heart of modern approaches to conservation – and most enlightened environmentalists now agree. It’s increasingly hard to look at conservation without also considering human rights and social issues.
3. Can we keep expanding protected areas? To protect threatened species across the world, conservationists have called for more and more land to be placed under protection. Renowned biologist EO Wilson, for instance, wants us to set aside “half the planet”. In an unconstrained world, dedicating half the earth to the protection of the most threatened species and the world’s important habitats might seem like a sensible way to avoid the risks of what people fear might trigger the next great extinction. In reality, there are few places left where such a proposal might practically be implemented.
From drought to flood, nation's biggest dam topped for first time in 50 years - -- California has spent the last six years grappling with a brutal drought. Now parts of the Golden State are suffering from the opposite problem: too much water. Extreme flooding this weekend washed away chunks of highway, <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http: