Author: Earth Refuge

Posted on

Can the International Criminal Court Prosecute Ecocide?

low-angle photography of tall tress during daytime

27 May 2022 – by Mary Rizk

On 22 June 2021, an international expert drafting panel commissioned by the Stop Ecocide Foundation shared its proposal for a fifth crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). After approximately a year of negotiations, the new legal definition for the term “ecocide” emerged and was highly praised by a number of environmentalists. However, many are concerned about how the crime of ecocide could be prosecuted in practice.

The New Proposed Definition

The panel of international lawyers defined ecocide as “unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment being caused by those acts”. If the introduction of this definition is welcomed and the efforts to criminalise ecocide are successful, the ICC would effectively be able to hold accountable those responsible for major ecological harms, such as governments and corporations.

The panel described “wanton” to mean: “reckless disregard for damage which would be clearly excessive in relation to the social and economic benefits anticipated” and “severe” as: “damage which involves very serious adverse changes, disruption, or harm to any element of the environment, including grave impacts on human life or natural, cultural, or economic resources”. According to Phillipe Sands, who co-chaired the expert panel, the definition catches “the most egregious acts”, such as major oil spills and transboundary nuclear accidents.

The History of Ecocide

The battle for the recognition of ecocide as an international crime has been a lengthy and challenging process. 

The term ecocide was first used in the 1970s, particularly in relation to whether the US was creating an ecocide in Vietnam during the war. In 1970, when speaking at the Conference on War and National Responsibility, Professor Arthur W. Galston suggested that there should be “a new international agreement to ban ecocide”. In 1972, at the United Nations (UN) Conference on the Human Environment, Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme explicitly described the Vietnam War as an “ecocide”. In 1985, the concept of ecocide resurfaced with a failed attempt to add ecocide to the Genocide Convention. Furthermore, the UN’s International Law Commission decided not to include “environmental crime” as an independent crime in its Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind.

In 2016, there was a shift in focus for the ICC, mainly in response to criticism for its unwillingness to investigate major environmental crimes at the time. The ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor, under former ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda, published a policy paper which stated that the ICC would “prioritise” the prosecution of governments and individuals for environmental crimes, such as illegal exploitation of natural resources and land-grabbing.

Challenges in Applying the Ecocide Term

The ICC only has jurisdiction over natural persons, so it does not have jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute corporations. Therefore, where there has been alleged corporate involvement in ecocide, a corporation itself cannot stand before the court because (legally speaking) it is not a natural person. A further hurdle would be which of its corporate officers would be held accountable for the alleged crime of ecocide.

Additionally, a member of the expert panel, Christina Voigt stated that regardless of the exact wording to be adopted by State Parties, altering the Rome Statute to include the crime of ecocide will not be an easy accomplishment. Voigt notes that there will be difficulty in building broader political support and global cooperation around the definition. Thus, it appears that formulating a legal definition is just the first step: a member state needs to propose it to the ICC, thereafter it would need to be approved by a majority of ICC States.  If the law is adopted into the Statute, harming nature or the planet will start to feel similar to harming humans. Nonetheless, the process of debating the definition will most likely take numerous years, while some argue it could take decades.

States such as  France, Belgium, and Canada  have voiced their support for ecocide to be recognised as a crime. However, it is important to note that the world’s top polluters, such as the United States, China, and India, are not members of the ICC.

The ICC is an autonomous and permanent court, established to investigate, prosecute, and try individuals accused of committing the most serious crimes of concern to the international community – namely genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. The ICC does not replace national criminal justice systems, it complements them. It can investigate and, where warranted, prosecute and try individuals as a “last resort”, for instance, where proceedings are unduly delayed.

The proposed definition could be a historical development for the entire world as environmental damage is growing dramatically. The existence of “ecocide” will amplify the issue of the environment. If ecocide were to be recognised in international law, corporations, as well as governments, would be held responsible for environmental damage. They would be forced to take the issue seriously and would not escape the consequences without punishment. Immediate action should be taken by including “ecocide” as the fifth international crime against peace.

Did you enjoy reading this piece? Then read our article on why the UK Parliament considered joining an independent expert panel in recommending ‘Ecocide’ as a new crime for ICC.

Mary Rizk is currently undertaking the Bar Professional Training Course at BPP Law School. She holds an LLM from Queen Mary, University of London. Mary has a particular interest in international human rights, criminal, and social justice issues.

Posted on

Climate Change and Resource Use Threaten the Habitability of Jakarta, Indonesia

park with fountain near buildings

24 May, 2022 – By Willy Phillips

Cities around the world are sinking. 

Climate change and the ever-growing need for freshwater have taken their toll on metropolitan areas from Lagos, Nigeria, to Houston, Texas.

Jakarta, the capital of Indonesia, is no exception. The densely populated capital city is sinking at about 17 cm a year, the fastest globally. With 10 million city inhabitants and over 32 million in the greater metropolitan area, the most populated archipelago city has trouble on the horizon. By 2050, one-third of the city will be uninhabitable due to flooding.

In Jakarta, the sinking results from climate change and groundwater pumping. Climate change contributes to higher average temperatures and sea levels, while the need for freshwater drives underground extraction, causing the land to sink. As the city continues to grow, demands for drinking water will rise. Sea levels show no sign of halting their vertical march, leaving many wondering what solutions are to come. 

The current President of Indonesia, Joko Widodo, has unveiled plans to address the sinking city by moving the capital to the neighboring island of Borneo. While this solution may solve the immediate crisis, the required 1,000 sq miles (256k hectares) of land and $34 billion of foreign investment in Eastern Borneo raise significant social, ecological, and geopolitical problems. Dwi Sawung, of the Indonesian NGO WALHI, notes three fundamental areas for concern with the plan: “threats to water systems and risks of climate change, threats to flora and fauna, and threats of pollution and environmental damage.” 

Opponents have called it proof of “the government’s inability to solve the complex problems of Jakarta.” Many have shown their dissent, including 95% of the government officials required to move, and several local communities of eastern Borneo that will be displaced to accommodate the influx of 9,000 new government workers and infrastructure. Transplanting the capital appears to create more problems than it solves and may exist as a temporary solution to much larger and persistent problems like resource insecurity and social injustice.

Jakarta is not alone in the context of land insecurity and instability. Regions worldwide are learning to mitigate the myriad new challenges posed by climate change. However, as situations like this become more commonplace, we hope that Jakarta will serve as a lighthouse model for climate change mitigation from which the world can learn. 

Posted on

Five Tropical Cyclones Have Already Devastated Mozambique in 2022

white clouds and blue sky

24 May 2022 – by Ella Kiyomi Dobson

In the first five months of 2022, Mozambique was hit by five tropical storms and cyclones that devastated many regions of the country. In March, the most recent storm – tropical cyclone Gombe – impacted at least 700,000 people. Moreover, it fully or partially destroyed homes, health centers, electricity systems, water systems, and almost 100,000 hectares of arable land and crops. Gombe is just one example of many extreme weather events that have shattered communities across Mozambique this past year. 

While scientists still cannot say with high levels of confidence that there are specific long-term trends in the frequency of tropical cyclones, the IPCC report released in August 2021 suggests that the incidence of stronger cyclones is likely over the next few years. Due to Mozambique’s coastal geography, the country is at heightened risk of these intensified cyclones and floods, and droughts due to the extensive coastline on which over half the population lives. In addition, the short recovery time experienced by communities across Mozambique between one extreme weather event to the next heightens the socio-economic impacts experienced and furthers issues of food insecurity, access to healthcare, housing security, and education. 

These climate risks have amplified effects in specific regions due to the ongoing violence and instability due to the insurgency that began in 2017. According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, in 2020, there were over 650,000 people displaced by violence in northern Mozambique. In 2022, the UN notes that 6000 people were recorded as newly displaced due to a resurgence in violence. Vulnerability to displacement will only increase with the growing incidences of compounding effects, and with a lack of resources, more and more populations will become affected. 

Posted on

More Than a Transaction: Indigenous Land Reconciliation in the US and Australia

green trees near river under blue sky during daytime

4 May 2022 – by Ben Chappelow

In September 2021, after four years of negotiations, Australia’s Queensland government returned four national parks to the Aboriginal Eastern Kuku Yalanji peoples. Spanning some 400,000 acres, these parks include the UNESCO World Heritage-listed Daintree Rainforest – the world’s oldest remaining rainforest.

The Eastern Kuku Yalanji peoples and the Queensland government will jointly manage the land for the foreseeable future. However, the overall goal is for the Eastern Kuku Yalanji peoples to become the sole and autonomous proprietors of their Indigenous land.

“The Eastern Kuku Yalanji people’s culture is one of the world’s oldest living cultures,” says Meaghan Scanlon MP, Queensland’s Minister for Environment, the Great Barrier Reef, and Science and Youth Affairs. “This agreement recognises their right to own and manage their Country, to protect their culture, and to share it with visitors as they become leaders in the tourism industry.”[1]

A month after Australia returned land to the Eastern Kuku Yalanji peoples, the United States (US) government restored full federal protective rights to the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante monuments in southern Utah.[2] The previous administration, which was seeking to extract the land’s fossil fuels, had drastically reduced the size of the Bears Ears monument by up to 85%, as well as halving the area of the protected Grand Staircase-Escalante. This was the single largest rollback of public lands protections in the history of the US. These lands, which span more than 3 million acres, are vital pieces of culture and history for many Indigenous peoples, including the Hopi, Navajo, Uintah and Ouray Ute, Ute Mountain Ute, and Zuni tribes.[3]

What’s more, the US government and local officials continue to bolster protections for Native lands which facilitate the transition of ownership back to Indigenous communities. In December 2020, the Trump administration signed legislation which initiated the relinquishment of more than 18,000 acres of the National Bison Range to the Salish and Kootenai tribes. [4] In October 2021, around five acres of land were transferred to the Rhode Island Narragansett tribe. It was on this same land that the Indigenous Narragansett peoples survived near-annihilation at the hands of English colonisers in 1675.[5]

As a result of land reconciliation, not only can Indigenous communities return as rightful owners of their Native lands, they can also improve local environmental protection efforts.

The Positive Impacts of Land Reconciliation

For Australia’s Eastern Kuku Yalanji people, reclaiming their land is the first step towards long-term, sustainable social and economic growth.

“Our goal is to establish a foundation to provide confident and competent people with pathways and opportunities for mentoring, training, apprenticeships, work experience, and employment for our Eastern Kuku Yalanji Bama,” says Eastern Kuku Yalanji Traditional Owners Negotiating Committee Member Chrissy Grant. “[The goal is] to fill positions from a wide range of skilled trades, land and sea management, hospitality, tourism, and research so that we are in control of our own destinies.”

The Eastern Kuku Yalanji tribe has lived sustainably on these lands for some 50,000 years. The Kuku Yalanji Aboriginal culture is based on a deep respect for nature, with a heavy dependency on the ecosystem’s natural cycle. Their Indigenous expertise is vital in implementing sustainable conservation efforts, as well as protecting natural resources against climate stressors.

According to Meaghan Scanlon, these national parks will “protect important Aboriginal cultural sites, diverse ecosystems (including rainforests, woodlands, wetlands and mangroves), and form part of the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area, which is recognised as the second most irreplaceable World Heritage site on Earth.”

In Montana, the Salish and Kootenai tribes have a long history with managing local bison ranges, and their approach is seemingly more beneficial than previous federal tactics. “We treat the buffalo with less stress, and handle them with more respect,” says Tom McDonald, an Indigenous person and Fish and Wildlife Division Manager for both tribes.[6] The Salish and Kootenai tribes are also co-managing migrating bison herds from Yellowstone National to US Forest Service land.

Native peoples generally take a more sensitive and familial approach to handling bison populations. Their techniques include keeping bison families together, mitigating the likelihood of stampedes, and ultimately reducing stress placed on the animals. These Indigenous animal handling techniques have helped to improve conservation efforts and management of the land, as well as the welfare of the animals which inhabit it.

In Rhode Island, the Narragansett tribe will be recognised as the stewards of their Indigenous land, utilising their traditional ecological knowledge to preserve it. “We agreed to protect it; we agreed to steward it,” says Morgan Grefe, Executive Director of the Historical Society. “We’re here in continuation of that promise—to see that this land is protected and stewarded in a way that we could never have accomplished ourselves”.[7]

These examples indicate the in-depth expertise that Indigenous peoples have for their Native land, as well as their cultural mastery in preserving natural resources. According to a United Nations review of more than 300 studies, rates of deforestation in South America were 50% lower in areas under Indigenous control when compared to areas managed by non-Native communities.[8] Protecting these forests is vital for mitigating the threats of climate change and preventing the extinction of regional wildlife.

World leaders are also beginning to acknowledge the significance of Indigenous expertise in lessening the effects of climate change. At COP26, the US, the UK, Germany, the Netherlands, and several private donors collectively pledged to provide US $1.7 billion to support Indigenous and local communities in tackling climate change and protecting biodiversity.[9] The funds have the potential to help Native communities build their own infrastructure, resolve territorial disputes, and support land reforms, among other endeavours.

Opportunities for Further Reconciliation

Beyond the expertise that Indigenous communities provide, transferring stolen land back to its owners is a moral obligation. The Indigenous peoples mentioned here have been dispossessed, abused, neglected, and in the case of the Narragansett tribe, nearly annihilated. This pain cannot be healed by simply acknowledging these wrongdoings – it requires a long-term commitment to restore what rightfully belongs to Native communities. The returning of Indigenous land is the first step in showing such commitment.

Hayden King, the Executive Director of the Yellowhead Institute and co-writer of the text Land Back, describes the returning of Native land through the perspective of the Beausoleil First Nation tribe as more than just returning property. “It’s also about revitalising Indigenous life, because we’re thinking about land as everything in unity, we’re thinking about our languages… our culture… our family, and social organisations connected to the land.”[10]

The returning of land is not only an opportunity for reconciliation, but a path for the autonomous growth and reestablishment of Indigenous communities. As Brian Lightfoot Brown of the Narragansett Tribe states, the land “is so deeply ingrained in who we are”.[11]

As world leaders gradually continue to rightfully recognise the benefits of including Indigenous communities in environmental preservation programmes, the fact that Native peoples are given back their land and resources is not just transactional. It’s an opportunity to plant the seeds of growth and restoration, while the land still remains fertile.

Was this article interesting? Then make sure to listen to our podcast on Native Climate Justice Organiser Ruth Miller and Her Work Towards an Indigenised Just Transition.

Benjamin Chappelow is a writer and narrative designer in the Appalachian mountains, United States.

As an immigration researcher and former Narrative Writer for the Climate Resilience Toolkit, he is focused on how the stories we tell dictate our behavior in an ecological crisis. 

References

 [1] The Queensland Cabinet and Ministerial Directory. (2021, September 28). 160,000 hectares returned on path to reconciliation. Ministerial Media Statements. Retrieved January 18, 2022.

 [2] Shivaram, D. (2021, October 8). Biden restores protections for bears ears monument, 4 years after Trump downsized it. NPR. Retrieved January 18, 2022.

[3] 7 big questions: What’s happening with bears ears and other national monuments? The Wilderness Society. (2021, August). Retrieved January 18, 2022.

[4]  U.S. Department of the Interior. (2021, January). Secretary Bernhardt Signs historic secretarial order to transition the National Bison Range into Tribal Trust for the Flathead Indian Reservation. Indian Affairs. Retrieved January 18, 2022.

[5] Associated Press. (2021, October 27). Tribe Given Land Where Ancestors Survived Near-Annihilation. U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved January 18, 2022.

[6]  Robbins, J. (2021, June 3). How returning lands to Native Tribes is helping protect nature. Yale E360. Retrieved January 18, 2022.

[7] Nunes, A. (2022, January 17). Site of ‘great swamp massacre’ returned to Narragansett Indian tribe. The Public’s Radio. Retrieved January 18, 2022.

[8] Carrington, D. (2021, March 25). Indigenous peoples by far the best guardians of forests – UN report. The Guardian. Retrieved January 18, 2022.

[9] Sutherland, L. (2021, November 3). $1.7 billion pledged in support of indigenous and local communities’ land tenure. Mongabay Environmental News. Retrieved January 18, 2022.

[10]  Monroe-Kane, C. (2021, December 20). How the land back movement is reclaiming land stolen from indigenous people. Wisconsin Public Radio. Retrieved January 18, 2022.

[11]  Brown, B. L. (2021, November 15). Long overdue: Sacred site returned to the Narragansett. Indian Country Today. Retrieved January 18, 2022.

Posted on

Brazil’s 490/2007 Bill: Stripping Indigenous Communities of Their Land Rights

amazon rainforest

27 April 2022 – by Shambhavi Kant

Brazil is home to the largest rainforest in the world, the Amazon, where many Indigenous communities reside. Although deforestation has been rampant in Brazil for decades, it has soared to new heights under the administration of Jair Messias Bolsonaro, the current President. In recent years, he has proposed several controversial laws which would result in further deforestation, irreparably affecting the lives of Indigenous communities across Brazil.

One such proposal which is of particular concern amongst Brazilian and international communities is Bill 490/ 2007.  The Bill, which has been sitting before congress since it was proposed by President Bolsarono in 2007, was approved under the Constitution and Justice Committee in June 2021, and is currently pending before the House of Deputies. 

The Amazon is home to more than 30 million people in its entirety, including several hundred Indigenous tribes. Research suggests that these communities have lived in the Amazon for around 5,000 years without causing any detectable loss or disturbance to local wildlife. Despite the fact that many Indigenous communities have been impacted in one way or another by outsiders, most continue to live in harmony with the environment through traditional, sustainable ways of utilizing the land.

Many of the other effects of deforestation – including habitat destruction, loss of biodiversity, disappearance of endangered species, loss of the rainforest’s influence on climate, and dampening of its ability to absorb emissions – are relatively well known. However, the devastating impact on Indigenous communities of damaging such precious land is often largely ignored by mainstream media.

This article attempts to shed some light on the discriminatory proposals contained within the above Bill, and, were it to be passed, explore its likely impacts at a human rights level.

Why is Brazil’s 490/2007 Bill So Detrimental to Indigenous Communities?

In pushing for this Bill, President Bolsonaro has argued that Indigenous communities are preventing development of the Amazon. Furthermore, there are several troublesome proposals contained within it which seek to erode the rights of Indigenous communities.

If this Bill were passed, it would prevent Brazil’s Indigenous communities from obtaining legal recognition of their traditional lands if they were not physically present there on October 5, 1988, or if they had not initiated any legal proceedings to claim it by that date. The Constitution of Brazil, on the other hand, recognizes Indigenous peoples’ right to “the lands they traditionally occupy” without any time limits or arbitrary cut-off date.

In addition, the Bill not only prevents Indigenous peoples from claiming additional land in order to expand already demarcated territories, but it also permits the government to remove Indigenous reserves. These reserves are the lands provided to Indigenous peoples by the government to protect their livelihoods and promote their cultural survival, which is especially crucial given that many Native Brazilians live entirely off the local land through a hunting, gathering, and cultivating crops. Under this proposal, the government would be able to eradicate these reserves and repossess land when it believes that it is no longer required for the cultural survival of the Indigenous communities.

What’s more, the Bill also allows the Brazilian government to find energy resources, set up military bases, develop strategic roads, and implement commercial agriculture on protected Indigenous tribal lands, without any prior discussion with the affected peoples. Once again, this deviates from the rights inscribed within the Brazilian Constitution, specifically Article 231(3)  which prohibits any mining on Indigenous land without prior consultation with Indigenous peoples. Furthermore, international standards also necessitate effective consultation with Indigenous peoples in good faith to obtain their free consent before approving any project that would affect their livelihoods in any manner.  For instance, Article 15(2) of The Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989, to which Brazil is a signatory, requires governments to establish procedures through which they shall consult the Indigenous peoples about the projects in their lands.

Violations of Indigenous Rights Under National and International Law

It is clear that to remove, exploit, or otherwise compromise land owned by and lived on by Indigenous people is not only a violation of national and international law, but also amounts to forcible displacement. Yet it appears that there is no recourse within this Bill for Native peoples to oppose these harmful plans.

President Bolsonaro not only continues to encourage mining and farming on Indigenous protected lands, but has now also approved a cut to the environment ministry budget. The opening up of Indigenous land for commercial agriculture and mining would increase the already rampant deforestation of the Amazon Rainforest, with grave repercussions for not only those whose families and ancestors have lived there for millennia, but also for the planet as a whole.

The demarcation and protection of Indigenous lands is not only important for upholding the rights of Indigenous Brazilians, but is also an effective measure for slowing down deforestation in Brazil. Several studies have shown that measures for securing tribal lands, like demarcation of Indigenous property, are in themselves effective in slowing down rates of deforestation. It is important to note that President Bolsonaro has not approved any demarcation of Indigenous land since January 2019.  

Indigenous peoples are dependent on Native lands for their livelihoods and cultural survival. If passed, the Bill would make it impossible for these communities to have their land rights recognized, and would also undermine those rights which are granted to them by the Brazilian constitution, along with international conventions like 1989 The Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention. It is hoped that this Bill, particularly its most harmful elements, will be prevented from passing, in order to safeguard the rights of Indigenous people across the Amazon and beyond.

Did you enjoy reading this? Then make sure to read our article on how Brazil’s Supreme Court is backing Indigenous communities in the fight for ancestral territory.

Shambhavi Kant is a third year law student at Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab. She is extremely interested in the field of Human Rights and likes to write about similar topics.

Shambhavi also has a profound interest in animal rights protection.  

Posted on

Powerful Tornadoes Warn Us About the Effects of Climate Change

white and black buildings under blue sky during daytime

15 March 2022 – by Deniz Saygi

Powerful tornadoes slammed a 200-mile path through six states in the Midwest and South of the United States last December, causing houses and factories to be demolished and approximately $5 billion losses. According to the reports, Kentucky is the worst-hit state concerning losses and casualties.  

After being hit by tornadoes, a candle factory in Mayfield, Kentucky was levelled causing casualties. Moreover, police and fire stations were destroyed, giant trees were uprooted, homes were flattened and power lines went down. 

After these unfortunate events, Joe Biden declared that he will require the Environmental Protection Agency to examine the role of climate change and global warming regarding recent tornadoes and storms.

In general, 1,500 tornadoes occur annually in the United States. The cluster of tornadoes that happened last December was exceptionally rare in terms of the season, the intensity and the length of the storm paths, experts state. 

“It was really a late spring type of setup in the middle of December. Usually, there’s not a lot of instability in the winter that’s needed for tornadoes because the air isn’t as warm and humid. This time there was,’’ says Victor Gensini, a meteorology professor from Northern Illinois University. 

The catastrophic effects of climate change are one of the drivers of the risks of hurricanes, wildfires, winter storms and hail storms because the rising temperature caused by global warming makes extreme weather conditions potentially more destructive. In light of these reasons, it is necessary to investigate the origins of extreme weather conditions in connection with climate change and take precautions accordingly – as suggested by scientists.

Posted on

Migrants Crossing US-Mexico Border Face Severe Dehydration

brown wooden fence near green trees during daytime

14 February 2022 – by Deniz Saygi 

Thousands of migrants – of whom, many are children – suffer from deadly heat conditions at the US-Mexico border. As the effects of climate change worsen day by day, extreme weather conditions are causing a high risk of dehydration and death amongst migrants who try to enter the States through the Sonoran Desert.

In order to calculate the deadliest areas in the U.S. – Mexico Border, scientists and researchers used a biophysical model of human dehydration. According to the report made by this model, it was found that most of the deaths were caused primarily by severe dehydration. After organizing the dataset in the regions with the casualties, severe dehydration that leads to death, water loss, organ failure, disorientation and physiological challenges in animal species were linked together for the report. 

“We provide the first empirical evidence that the physiological stresses experienced by humans attempting to cross the Sonoran Desert into the U.S. are sufficient to cause severe dehydration and associated conditions that can lead to death. A disproportionately large percentage of migrant deaths occur in areas where the predicted rates of water loss are highest,” says Ryan Long, an associate professor of wildlife sciences at the University of Idaho. Long also underlines the importance of access to drinking water supplies for preventing the risks at the highest rates of water loss during migration across the borders in the region. 

Models developed for fighting against climate change and water scarcity unfortunately show us that these type of border crossings will only become more dangerous over time, increasing the already large number of people who do not make it across. Measures must be taken immediately to mitigate this crisis.

Posted on

Understanding the Inequality of the Urban Heat Island Effect

a river in the city

9 February 2022 – by Mia Bezar

This article is part of Earth Refuge’s Spotlight Series on Philadelphia

During the summer of 2021, cities across the United States (‘US’) have seen record breaking temperatures to an extent that scientists say would have been “virtually impossible” to reach without anthropogenic climate change. Cities are especially prone to such extreme heat because of particular characteristics which cause people within urban areas— particularly low-income residents — to bear an undue burden of the effects of climate change. 

What is the Urban Heat Island Effect?

Heat islands are urban areas that experience higher temperatures than their surrounding areas for a variety of reasons. For one, cities contain more man-made structures, such as buildings, roads, and dark roofs, which absorb and re-emit the sun’s heat more than natural land does. Additionally, more vehicles, more air conditioning units, and more industrial facilities all contribute to the heat island effect felt in cities across the world.

The city of Philadelphia is a paradigmatic heat island. Since 1970, Philadelphia’s average summer temperature has increased by three degrees Fahrenheit (-16 °C), leading to more extreme heat events. In the past fourteen years alone, heat-related events have caused nearly 150 deaths in Philadelphia. The magnitude of such tragedy is only expected to grow larger. Just this past summer, Philadelphia declared a Heat Health Emergency, which only occurs from May through June when temperatures are expected to reach 101°F (38 °C) or higher for two consecutive days, or 98°F (37 °C ) or higher for three or more consecutive days. This designation puts services like the city’s heatline into effect and bars any residential utility shutoffs.

The Disproportionate Impacts

Philadelphia is a quintessential heat island not only because the city has become hotter overall, but also because within the city — as in so many others — low-income neighborhoods and communities of color face disproportionate impacts of the increasing temperatures. 

Philadelphia’s Hunting Park neighborhood, one of the city’s most impoverished areas, is illustrative. A recent report from the Philadelphia City Planning Commission showed that more than 75% of land cover in Hunting Park was comprised of buildings, roads, and paved surfaces. By contrast, tree canopy — which helps reduce heat — covers only 9% of the neighborhood. As a result, the neighborhood tends to be significantly warmer than the average city temperature: average surface temperature data shows that Hunting Park can be as much as 22°F (-6 °C) warmer than other neighborhoods. 

These differences in landscape between Hunting Park and the rest of the city are largely a consequence of redlining, the systematic denial of financial services to residents of particular areas usually based on race. Redlining largely influenced historic housing policies in the US that led to the residential segregation that still exists today. Research shows that surface temperatures in formerly redlined neighborhoods in urban areas across the country tend to be up to 36°F (2 °C) warmer than non-redlined areas. While these trends are most pronounced in Southeast and Western cities in the US, the Philadelphia Heat Vulnerability Index shows that they remain consistent in Philadelphia as well.

Effective Solutions

Fortunately, action can still be taken at a more regional level to combat the effects of the urban heat island. Two of the most straightforward solutions are to increase the number of white roofs and to increase tree cover. Data from the Center for Clean Air Policy shows that white or light-colored roofs can reflect up to 80% of the sun’s rays in comparison to the 70% heat absorption of black roofs, in turn allowing homes to stay at lower temperatures. 

Adding more tree canopy would also go a long way. Trees tend to absorb anywhere from 70 to 90% of sunlight in summer, and 20 to 90% of sunlight in winter, leading to significantly reduced temperatures in Hunting Park and other neighborhoods that are rapidly warming. 

Although both solutions would require substantial investment, the benefits outweigh the costs. Indeed, data shows that more trees provide stormwater benefits and increase property values. More importantly, investment in reducing the impacts of the urban heat island effect and climate change more generally represents a small piece of a large effort owed to underserved communities. As climate migration continues to drive people to seek refuge in cities, it is becoming increasingly important to ensure that cities are prepared to provide these types of resources to current and future residents.

Posted on

Cleaning Up a Toxic Legacy: The Fight Against Environmental Racism in Philadelphia

drone shot of philadelphia city

9 February 2022 – by Mia Bezar 

This article is part of Earth Refuge’s Spotlight Series on Philadelphia

In the middle of the night on June 21, 2019, residents across the city of Philadelphia were awoken by an explosion at the Philadelphia Energy Solutions (‘PES’) Refinery. Only days later, as the damage was still being assessed, PES announced that it would permanently close the refinery, marking the end of a major piece of an industry that has been present in Philadelphia since the Civil War. 

Although residents were pleased by its closure, the refinery’s lingering effects continue to put Philadelphians at risk every day, underscoring the 150 years of suffering and now irreversible damage that the PES refinery has done to surrounding neighborhoods. Nevertheless, these neighborhoods have mounted a strong response to raise awareness and push back against the refinery, ultimately influencing the space’s future.

Background

The petroleum industry grew quickly in Philadelphia. By 1822, just years after the discovery of petroleum in Titusville, Pennsylvania, the refinery that would later become PES was one of America’s largest. In fact, by 1891, Philadelphia produced 35% of all US petroleum exports. And by 2012, the refinery had become one of the largest on the east coast. 

Given the refinery’s scale, it is perhaps unsurprising that it has harmed—and continues to harm—the surrounding communities. Before the explosion, the refinery was responsible for 72% of toxic air emissions in Philadelphia. As a result, Grays Ferry, the predominantly African American neighborhood immediately bordering the refinery, continues to bear the brunt of the refinery’s effects. Residents there experience alarming rates of asthma, cancer, and other life-threatening health conditions when compared to their neighbors across Philadelphia. 

A History of Environmental Injustice

The harm did not stop after the explosion and subsequent closure of the refinery. An investigation by the US Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board found that the PES explosion released 5,239 pounds of hydrofluoric acid – a deadly chemical – into the air. Even three years after its closure, the refinery continued to emit extremely high levels of benzene, a cancer-causing chemical. 

This story of environmental racism is not unique to Grays Ferry or Philadelphia. Indeed, one study from the American Public Health Association found that African Americans were more than 1.5 times more likely to be exposed to particulate matter emissions because of their proximity to pollution-emitting facilities. Another study reported that African Americans are 75% more likely to live near facilities releasing hazardous chemicals into the air.

Pushing Back 

Despite the pervasive effects of the now-defunct refinery, the surrounding neighborhoods continue to push back. In 2015, a group of Philadelphia residents founded Philly Thrive, an environmental justice group that runs strategic campaigns focusing on fossil fuel divestment, energy insecurity and injustice, and environmental racism. While discussions of climate migration often revolve around where to go, it is important to acknowledge that many people do not have the resources to move. Thus, the alternative is to work towards improving conditions at home, which is what Philly Thrive aims to do. 

While Philly Thrive’s original “Right to Breathe” campaign was unsuccessful in stopping Philadelphia from developing a gas plant in 2019, the group has prevailed in its four other campaigns, including its “Contesting for Closure” campaign, which helped push for permanent closure of the refinery. Its current “Right to Thrive” campaign revolves around the future of the refinery and uprooting the environmental racism embodied by the history of the refinery. Beyond pushing legislative action, Philly Thrive provides meeting spaces to address concerns within the organization and to amplify voices and provide safe spaces for members of the community. 

As for the refinery, there may be brighter days ahead. In January 2020, a Chicago-based real estate development company acquired the PES Refinery for $240 million and has plans to convert the 1,300 acres into a green and sustainable commercial hub. 

Closure of the refinery represents an important step forward for the city, and particularly for impacted communities. While there is still a long way to go to even begin to reduce the refinery’s effects, the space appears to have a greener future ahead.

However, it is important to note that just because the space has a greener future does not mean that all its resulting problems will be solved: there are still concerns around transparency and equity, especially with respect to those that have been most affected by the refinery. 

Posted on

How Green is Philadelphia?

body of water near city buildings during daytime

9 February 2022 – by Mia Bezar

This article is part of Earth Refuge’s Spotlight Series on Philadelphia

When Michael Nutter stepped onto the stage at a forum for the 2007 Philadelphia mayoral primary election, he appeared to be in last place, trailing behind far more prominent and powerful candidates. The one advantage that Nutter had, however, was that he was the only candidate prepared to discuss environmental policy. Shortly thereafter, Nutter mounted a comeback and was elected mayor, making sustainability and environmentalism central to his administration’s work, declaring a goal of making Philadelphia the greenest city in America.

Even though good has come of that initial 2007 commitment to sustainability, there are still several environmental challenges to be addressed before Philadelphia can truly live up to the label of being the “greenest city in America.”

Greenworks

In 2009, during the Nutter administration, the city launched Greenworks, an innovative initiative that set a long-term vision for sustainability goals in Philadelphia and paved the way for several key programs. Greenworks was unique because it not only spurred environmental policies, it also aimed to weave sustainability into all areas of city policy. In many ways, Greenworks has found major success and served as a model for other cities across the country.

One major Greenworks success has been a cross-departmental program targeted toward reducing the city’s asthma rates. Through a collaboration between Philadelphia’s Departments of Sustainability and Public Health, the city has improved indoor air qualities in areas with higher rates of asthma by encouraging smoke-free policies and reducing other asthma triggers. As a result, rates of asthma hospitalizations in children have declined significantly since the program was launched.

Greenworks has also created programs to address larger environmental drivers of health issues like asthma. In 2019, the city passed the Building Energy Performance Policy, which requires large non-residential buildings to either certify high performance or perform maintenance to improve their energy efficiency. With buildings producing around 79% of Philadelphia’s overall carbon emissions, the policy was expected to cut the city’s carbon emissions by almost 200,000 metric tons, or the equivalent of taking 40,000 cars off the road. The policy is just one aspect of the city’s Municipal Energy Master Plan,, the city’s larger plan for reducing carbon emissions. Thus far, the plan has been a success: a recent report shows that Philadelphia has reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 33% since 2006, putting the city on track to reach its goal of reducing emissions by 50% by 2030.

Community Engagement

While Greenworks has fostered successful systems-level initiatives, the Office of Sustainability has also recognized the need for more projects that engage individuals directly. For instance, a Greenworks program called TreePhilly has encouraged thousands of Philadelphians to help work towards the city’s goal of reaching 30% tree canopy in every neighborhood. A related program called the Philly Tree Program partners with non-profit organizations to overcome language barriers to seek input from non-native English speakers in deciding where trees should be planted to maximize their community impact. 

Another realm in which the city has been able to engage the community is with green stormwater infrastructure. In 2011, the Philadelphia Water Department launched Green City Clean Waters, a plan to reduce the amount of stormwater entering sewers. Like TreePhilly, the plan generated overwhelming public support because of surveys and educational resources that the Water Department used to gauge Philadelphians’ interest. Overall, Green City Clean Waters has been a success: in a decade, the city has managed to install enough green tools to keep almost 3 billion gallons of polluted water out of surrounding rivers. However, a report from the city showed that rising sea levels will compromise many stormwater outfall structures, preventing proper drainage. Philadelphia needs to continue to assess its own systems and monitor the situation in order for true climate change preparedness.

Moving Forward

Philadelphia has made significant progress in sustainability, and the city must continue to address the current needs of its residents while preparing for the future. In recent years, the city has managed to educate its citizens on many environmental issues through Greenworks that they would not have been engaged with otherwise. While Philadelphia still has work to do, the city has taken impressive steps in the right direction.