Category: Pollution

‘Silent Spring’ 60 years on: 4 essential reads on pesticides and the environment

/ activist360
Photo by Laura Arias, Pexels
Man Fumigating the Plants Laura Arias, Pexels

By Jennifer Weeks, The Conversation (US CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

In 1962 environmental scientist Rachel Carson published “Silent Spring,” a bestselling book that asserted that overuse of pesticides was harming the environment and threatening human health. Carson did not call for banning DDT, the most widely used pesticide at that time, but she argued for using it and similar products much more selectively and paying attention to their effects on nontargeted species.

“Silent Spring” is widely viewed as an inspiration for the modern environmental movement. These articles from The Conversation’s archive spotlight ongoing questions about pesticides and their effects.

1. Against absolutes

Although the chemical industry attacked “Silent Spring” as anti-science and anti-progress, Carson believed that chemicals had their place in agriculture. She “favored a restrained use of pesticides, but not a complete elimination, and did not oppose judicious use of manufactured fertilizers,” writes Harvard University sustainability scholar Robert Paarlberg.

Rachel Carson. The author of Silent Spring (1962), the book that forced the nation to confront the toll of pesticides on the environment, Carson began her career with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. A refuge on the southern coast of Maine now bears her name. (USFWS) (CC BY 2.0)
Rachel Carson. The author of Silent Spring (1962), the book that forced the nation to confront the toll of pesticides on the environment, Carson began her career with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. A refuge on the southern coast of Maine now bears her name. (USFWS) (CC BY 2.0)

This approach put Carson at odds with the fledgling organic movement, which totally rejected synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. Early organic advocates claimed Carson as a supporter nonetheless, but Carson kept them at arm’s length. “The organic farming movement was suspect in Carson’s eyes because most of its early leaders were not scientists,” Paarlberg observes.

This divergence has echoes today in debates about whether organic production or steady improvements in conventional farming have more potential to feed a growing world population.

2. Concerned cropdusters

Well before “Silent Spring” was published, a crop-dusting industry developed on the Great Plains in the years after World War II to apply newly commercialized pesticides. “Chemical companies made broad promises about these ‘miracle’ products, with little discussion of risks. But pilots and scientists took a much more cautious approach,” recounts University of Nebraska-Kearney historian David Vail.

As Vail’s research shows, many crop-dusting pilots and university agricultural scientists were well aware of how little they knew about how these new tools actually worked. They attended conferences, debated practices for applying pesticides and organized flight schools that taught agricultural science along with spraying techniques. When “Silent Spring” was published, many of these practitioners pushed back, arguing that they had developed strategies for managing pesticide risks.

Archival footage of crop-dusters spraying in California in the 1950s.

Today aerial spraying is still practiced on the Great Plains, but it’s also clear that insects and weeds rapidly evolve resistance to every new generation of pesticides, trapping farmers on what Vail calls “a chemical-pest treadmill.” Carson anticipated this effect in “Silent Spring,” and called for more research into alternative pest control methods – an approach that has become mainstream today.

3. The osprey’s crash and recovery

In “Silent Spring,” Carson described in detail how chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides persisted in the environment long after they were sprayed, rising through the food chain and building up in the bodies of predators. Populations of fish-eating raptors, such as bald eagles and ospreys, were ravaged by these chemicals, which thinned the shells of the birds’ eggs so that they broke in the nest before they could hatch.

“Up to 1950, ospreys were one of the most widespread and abundant hawks in North America,” writes Cornell University research associate Alan Poole. “By the mid-1960s, the number of ospreys breeding along the Atlantic coast between New York City and Boston had fallen by 90%.”

Bans on DDT and other highly persistent pesticides opened the door to recovery. But by the 1970s, many former osprey nesting sites had been developed. To compensate, concerned naturalists built nesting poles along shorelines. Ospreys also learned to colonize light posts, cell towers and other human-made structures.

Wildlife monitors band young ospreys in New York City’s Jamaica Bay to monitor their lives and movements.

Today, “Along the shores of the Chesapeake Bay, nearly 20,000 ospreys now arrive to nest each spring – the largest concentration of breeding pairs in the world. Two-thirds of them nest on buoys and channel markers maintained by the U.S. Coast Guard, who have become de facto osprey guardians,” writes Poole. “To have robust numbers of this species back again is a reward for all who value wild animals, and a reminder of how nature can rebound if we address the key threats.”

4. New concerns

Pesticide application techniques have become much more targeted in the 60 years since “Silent Spring” was published. One prominent example: crop seeds coated with neonicotinoids, the world’s most widely used class of insecticides. Coating the seeds makes it possible to introduce pesticides into the environment at the point where they are needed, without spraying a drop.

But a growing body of research indicates that even though coated seeds are highly targeted, much of their pesticide load washes off into nearby streams and lakes. “Studies show that neonicotinoids are poisoning and killing aquatic invertebrates that are vital food sources for fish, birds and other wildlife,” writes Penn State entomologist John Tooker.

In multiple studies, Tooker and colleagues have found that using coated seeds reduces populations of beneficial insects that prey on crop-destroying pests like slugs.

“As I see it, neonicotinoids can provide good value in controlling critical pest species, particularly in vegetable and fruit production, and managing invasive species like the spotted lanternfly. However, I believe the time has come to rein in their use as seed coatings in field crops like corn and soybeans, where they are providing little benefit and where the scale of their use is causing the most critical environmental problems,” Tooker writes.

1 in 5 Deaths Globally Caused by Fossil Fuel Pollution, a New Study Reveals

/ activist360 / Leave a comment
Photo by Johannes Plenio on Unsplash
Photo by Johannes Plenio on Unsplash

By Douglas Broom, Senior Writer, Formative Content, World Economic Forum (Public License).

  • Burning fossil fuels is causing nearly one in five of all deaths worldwide.
  • A new study found the death toll is almost twice as high as previously thought.
  • China’s clean-air initiatives have saved 1.5 million lives, but the country still has the highest death toll.
  • The researchers call on policymakers to make the switch to clean energy.

Fossil fuel pollution was responsible for almost one in five deaths in 2018, according to a new study which has prompted calls for governments and businesses to do more to switch to clean energy.

More than eight million people died as a result of breathing in minute particulate matter from burning fossil fuels in 2018, according to research from Harvard University, in collaboration with the University of Birmingham, the University of Leicester and University College London.

They found that particulate pollution was responsible for 18% of deaths in 2018, almost twice the level previously estimated. In 2016, the World Health Organization (WHO) put the global death toll from air pollution at 4.2 million.

We already know that more than nine out of 10 people live in areas where air pollution exceeds WHO safety levels. So how did the researchers arrive at such alarming figures for fossil fuel-related deaths?

The study took a new approach, using a 3D atmospheric modelling tool to pinpoint the greatest concentrations of fine particulate (PM2.5) pollution around the world, and combined that data with more accurate measurements of its effects.

Death toll underestimated

As well as confirming that regions with the worst air pollution have the highest rates of mortality, the study, published in the journal Environmental Research, found that the number of deaths in these regions had been underestimated.

Although China has achieved a dramatic reduction in particulate pollution – numbers almost halved between 2012 and 2018 – the country still emerged with the highest death toll (3.9 million) followed by India (2.5 million).

The study found that without its clean air initiatives, the death toll in China would have been even higher. As well as saving 1.5 million lives in China, the measures had also reduced deaths from particulate pollution outside the country by almost a million as well.

North America, Europe and Asia were also shown to suffer more deaths from particulates than previously thought. Overall, the study found higher mortality rates among people who suffered long-term exposure to fossil-fuel emissions, even at comparatively low levels.

Switch to clean energy

“Our study adds to the mounting evidence that air pollution from ongoing dependence on fossil fuels is detrimental to global health,” said Professor Eloise Marais of University College, London, one of the report’s authors.

“We can’t in good conscience continue to rely on fossil fuels, when we know that there are such severe effects on health and viable, cleaner alternatives,” she added.

Harvard Professor Joel Schwartz, another of the report’s authors, said that often discussion of the harmful effects of burning fossil fuels focused on CO2 emissions and climate change and overlooked the damage to health from pollutants emitted along with greenhouse gases.

“We hope that by quantifying the health consequences of fossil fuel combustion, we can send a clear message to policymakers and stakeholders of the benefits of a transition to alternative energy sources,” he said.

Global leaders, surveyed for the World Economic Forum’s 2021 Global Risks report, ranked human environmental damage, like air pollution, as one of the top 10 clear and present dangers facing the planet. They also ranked it the third most likely risk to materialize in 2021.

‘Trying to Have It Both Ways’: Investigation Reveals BP and Shell Still Back Anti-Climate Lobby Groups, Despite Pledges

/ activist360 / Leave a comment

The Unearthed and HuffPost report reveals the companies failed to disclose membership in at least eight Big Oil lobbies in their transparency reports. 

Oil Refinery
Image by Thomas H. from Pixabay

By Brett Wilkins, staff writer, Common Dreams (CC BY-ND 3.0).

Fossil fuel giants Royal Dutch Shell and BP remain active members of numerous Big Oil lobby groups fighting against climate legislation and regulation—without disclosing this in their transparency reports—an Unearthed and HuffPost investigation revealed Monday. 

According to the report, Shell and BP—the world’s second- and fourth-largest oil companies by revenue last year—are members of at least eight industry trade organizations lobbying against climate measures in the United States and Australia.

Both companies support the “astroturf” group Alliance of Western Energy Consumers, which boasted that it had “defeated carbon pricing bills” in Oregon, and the Texas Oil & Gas Association, which is fighting regulation of the super-heating greenhouse gas methane in the nation’s largest oil-producing state. 

Shell and BP also both back the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association, both of which are working to undercut the country’s compliance with the Paris climate agreement. Shell also remains a member of the Queensland Resources Council, which is backing construction of the world’s largest coal mine in the northeastern state. 

[Shell and BP are] trying to have it both ways, being socially responsible without changing their actual positions.”

—Robert Brulle, climate denial researcher and professor at Brown University’s Institute at Brown for Environment and Society.

The companies, which are quoted in the report, say they are trying to reform the lobby groups from the inside, and that they would review their membership in the future.

“If we reach an impasse, we will be transparent in publicly stating our differences,” BP said. “And on major issues, if our views and those of an association cannot be reconciled then we will be prepared to leave.” 

Earlier this year, both Shell and BP announced in almost identical language their “ambition” to be net-zero emissions businesses by 2050. In recent years they have also very publicly quit numerous industry trade groups that fund denial of anthropogenic climate change or that fight legislation or regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, while pledging to be more transparent about their associations with lobby groups.

While some observers have praised Shell and BP for finally taking some meaningful action to combat climate change caused by carbon emissions—which Shell’s own scientists warned about nearly 40 years ago—many climate activists say the companies’ efforts are misleading, and aren’t nearly enough to avert the worst effects of catastrophic global heating.

Last week, a report from Oil Change International stated that none of the plans or pledges from eight leading oil companies including Shell and BP even come close to aligning with the 2015 Paris agreement’s goal of limiting global warming this century to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

Kelly Trout, a senior research analyst at OCI, likened oil companies to “an arsonist pledging to light a few less fires.” 

Robert Brulle, a climate denial researcher and professor at Brown University’s Institute at Brown for Environment and Society, accused Shell and BP of “trying to have it both ways.” 

“This is a standard business practice,” Brulle told HuffPost and Unearthed—which is Greenpeace U.K.’s investigative journalism platform. “They’re trying to have it both ways, being socially responsible without changing their actual positions.”