Scientists agree that we are in the midst of a sixth mass extinction event, driven largely by human activity. As severe weather events prompted by climate change become more frequent, and other signs of impending environmental collapse emerge, environmental legislation has become increasingly vital. Enacted in 1973 in the US with bipartisan support, the Endangered Species Act is considered one of the most successful and overarching biodiversity protection efforts in history. It sets an international standard that, if mirrored by other nations, could successfully prevent extinctions across the world. 

—

What is the 1973 Endangered Species Act?

The 1973 Endangered Species Act (ESA) created a framework for the conservation and recovery of at-risk plants and animals in the United States. The law requires federal agencies to ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardise the existence of any species listed. It also mandates the preservation of the designated critical habitat of such species, banning their destruction or harmful modification. The trade and “taking,” or harassing, harming and killing, of all listed species under the act is thereby prohibited, and the review of registered pesticides is required to ensure that their use is not likely to threaten listed plants and animals. As the administrators of the Act, the US Fish and Wildlife Service focuses on terrestrial and freshwater organisms while the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Service is responsible for marine wildlife protection. 

Which Species are Protected by the Endangered Species Act of 1973?

All native species of plants and animals are eligible for protection under the Endangered Species Act, except pest insects. To have a species listed, individuals and organisations submit petitions, which undergo scientific evaluation and public review before the final decision is made. Protected species fall under one of two categories: endangered or threatened. Per the ESA, ‘Endangered species’ means “any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” While ‘Threatened’ species are those that are “likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future.”

You might also like: 10 of the Most Endangered Species in the US

Why Do We Need the Endangered Species Act?

The extinction of any species is a tragedy; a unique and magnificent creature has been eliminated forever. From a pragmatic perspective, species restoration is critical to ensure the long-term endurance of food supplies, medicinal ingredients, clean air and water, and other services necessary for survival. Even seemingly unimportant species, for example the  plankton, play a key role in the larger delicate, interconnected web. These minuscule water-dwelling organisms are the foundation of the aquatic food chain. Phytoplankton consume carbon dioxide and produce oxygen during photosynthesis, helping our battle against climate change and offering oxygen for our lungs. Yet, researchers at Canada’s Dalhousie University found that their population has fallen 40% since the 1950s, likely due to water pollution, rising ocean temperature and acidification.  The EcoPelGol Project found that as a result of the “modified the quality and quantity” of plankton, sardine and anchovy populations in the Mediterranean Sea have declined by one-third in ten years. 

Though it is impossible to predict the cascade effect that an extinction will have on an ecosystem, recent research done by Flinders University revealed that losing a single species increases the risk of an extinction domino effect that could lead to global ecological collapse. According to one of the authors, “because all species are connected in the web of life, our paper demonstrates that even the most tolerant species ultimately succumb to extinction when the less-tolerant species on which they depend disappear.” By creating a population recovery plan and applying protections when a species is listed under the Endangered Species Act, the United States government hopes to prevent environmental catastrophe. Time and resources are invested in the long-term recovery of the species’ habitat, food availability, reproduction rate, and more by the administering organisation. Populations are monitored until they are considered recovered and can be unlisted.

Since inception, 99% of listed species have avoided extinction, making the Endangered Species Act the gold standard for species restoration. However, the Endangered Species Act has been amended and revised many times, often eroding its original protections. During the Trump administration, the government began taking economic considerations into account before listing a species and reduced protections for species listed as ‘threatened.’ To ensure the continued efficacy of the Endangered Species Act, citizens of the United States and the government must resist all such efforts to weaken its protections. On precedent alone, the ESA represents a historic effort to preserve native species and aid in their population recovery, in an acknowledgement of the grave danger posed by extinction. To avert environmental disaster, it is imperative that the original goals of the ESA are preserved and reinforced. 

How Can Individuals Support and Strengthen the ESA?

Small individual actions, such as eating less meat and ensuring that your paper products are harvested from responsibly managed forests, support the ESA by protecting endangered species, as do mobilising within grassroots communities to protect local wildlife. Under the ESA, individuals can submit a species for consideration and participate during the public review period of a listing petition. By making lifestyle changes, mobilising locally, and monitoring government actions by demanding adherence to the ESAs protections and fighting undermining efforts, citizens act as a voice for the voiceless, protecting the species on which their survival relies.

You might also like: 10 of the World’s Most Endangered Animals in 2022

The post Explainer: What Is the 1973 Endangered Species Act and Why Is It Important? appeared first on Earth.Org.

Humans need sunscreen to protect their skin from ultraviolet rays and prevent skin cancer. However, researchers recently concluded that chemicals found in all commercially available sunscreens, even reef-safe sunscreen, pose serious threats to the environment, particularly coral reefs, and marine organisms. This begs the question, are reef-safe sunscreen possible? And how can consumers look for the best environment-safe sunscreen? 

—

In 2008, evidence was found that common ingredients in sunscreen can bleach coral reefs. Sunscreen manufacturers responded to this discovery by creating ‘reef safe’ sunscreens, using alternative UV filters like zinc oxide. However, recent research shows that these options are no safer for the environment.

Why is Sunscreen Bad for the Environment?

During recreational activities and water sports in natural waters, sunscreen washes off people’s skin to disperse in the surrounding environment. Some chemicals in the lotion can be absorbed through the skin and detected in urine within 30 minutes of application. Thus, they enter sewers or septic tanks when people flush the toilet or wash off sunscreen in the shower. In towns near bodies of water without sophisticated sewage treatment and water management systems, sunscreen pollution is inevitable.

There are two kinds of sunscreen available in stores. They work in different ways, but the active ingredients in both types harm the environment.

Chemical (organic): Chemical sunscreens are the most commonly used sunscreen. They absorb and reduce UV rays’ ability to penetrate the skin. 

Their most common active ingredients – oxybenzone, butylparaben, and octinoxate – were identified as environmentally harmful in a 2008 study. Researchers found that the chemicals can activate latent viral infections in the symbiotic microalgae that the corals rely on for nutrition. Studies that followed further demonstrated chemical sunscreen’s harmful impact on coral reefs and marine organisms. According to a 2015 study, “we found that oxybenzone induces coral bleaching by lowering the temperature at which corals will bleach when exposed to prolonged heat stress. We also showed that oxybenzone is genotoxic, meaning that it damages coral DNA as well as induces severe and lethal deformities. Most alarmingly, we determined that oxybenzone also acts as an endocrine disruptor.”

Physical (mineral or inorganic): The second type, often marketed as ‘environmentally-friendly’ and ‘reef safe’, is still less popular than chemical sunscreens. Physical sunscreens block or reflect both UVA and UVB rays but leave a whitish tinge on people’s skin and are often oily and difficult to rub in. 

The most common ingredients in physical sunscreens are zinc oxide and titanium dioxide. A recently published study found that non-coated zinc oxide and titanium dioxide nanoparticles (less than 35 nanometers in diameter), in other words, so-called reef-safe sunscreen, can be toxic to corals, fish, and other reef organisms. Their small size, interaction with cells, and the fact that they cause oxidative stress in sunlight (coral bleaching) damages hard corals and their symbiotic algae.

Sunscreen Overall: Aside from the primary, active ingredients, many other chemicals in sunscreen are potentially toxic to aquatic ecosystems. Methoxycinnamate and camphor are on the International Chemical Secretariat’s SIN (Substitute it Now) list due to their activity as endocrine disruptors to humans and wildlife. Plant-based oils can be toxic to reef organisms as well. Chrysanthemum oil contains Pyrethrins, which are highly toxic to marine species. Neem, eucalyptus, and lavender oils are used as insect repellents or insecticides, suggesting they may also be toxic to invertebrates. Ultimately, organic ingredients are not necessarily safe. 

Are There Any Environmentally and Reef-Safe Sunscreen?

Despite numerous studies indicating that the primary active ingredients in chemical and physical sunscreens damage marine environments, some experts argue that further research is needed. They postulate that studies undertaken in lab environments may fail to capture conditions on the reef, where pollutants are quickly dispersed and diluted. However, while the concentrations of sunscreen ingredients used in some research may be higher than those in natural environments, the negative impact of these chemicals on aquatic organisms is unmistakable. 

Considering this, consumers might feel discouraged in their effort to protect their skin and the environment simultaneously. Yet there is hope for the future; scientists are working on various solutions. For instance, at the College of Pharmacy at the University of Florida, a team is developing a sunscreen using shinorine (a UV-absorbing ingredient harvested from algae).

In the meantime, the following rules of thumb will help consumers choose the most environmentally and reef-safe sunscreen available. 

• Finish using the sunscreen already purchased. It will end up in the environment regardless, so throwing is wasteful and ineffective.
• Be discerning. Most sunscreens that are marketed as environmentally friendly are not.
• Read labels carefully. Avoid sunscreens with the following chemicals: Oxybenzone, Benzophenone-1, Benzophenone-8, OD-PABA, 4-Methylbenzylidene camphor, 3-Benzylidene camphor, nano-Titanium dioxide, Methoxycinnamate, nano-Zinc oxide, Octinoxate, Octocrylene, homosalate, and octisalate.
• Organic does not mean safe. Research plant-based oils and avoid those that are toxic to living organisms.
• Do not use spray-on sunscreen. While spray-on sunscreens are popular for their easy application, they are one of the worst possible options. Much of the stream ends up in the environment without ever protecting anyone’s skin. It is also unhealthy to inhale.
• Choose plastic-free packaging. At least 14 million tons of plastic end up in the ocean every year, and 80% of all marine waste is plastic. Marine organisms ingest or are entangled by plastic debris, causing injuries and death. Companies concerned about the environmental impact of their product typically choose to avoid plastic packaging and containers, opting for recyclable, non-plastic options.
• Look for non-nano zinc oxide and titanium dioxide-based physical sunscreens produced by transparent companies. Researchers found that non-nanotised (above 150 nanometers in diameter) coated zinc oxide and titanium dioxide do not readily exhibit acute toxicities.
• Cover exposed skin with hats and long sleeves rather than wearing sunscreen. While this is the only truly environmentally friendly option, skin cancer is still a concern on the face, neck, and hands. 

There are several non-nano zinc oxide-based physical sunscreens that satisfy most, if not all, of these guidelines available.  Raw Love Sunscreen uses 100% plant-based ingredients produced organically. The slightly oily consistency and slight white skin tint upon application may deter some consumers, while the short list of easily recognisable natural ingredients attracts others. Another option, Hello Bello’s Sunscreen Mineral Lotion, is sold in a plastic tube. But the lotion’s scent and texture are similar to that of commonly used chemical sunscreens, making it an easier transition into non-nano zinc oxide-based sunscreens than other options. Last but not least, Raw Elements Sunscreen’s ingredient list does not include any overtly toxic plant-based oils, the container is a recyclable/reusable tin, and the packaging is plastic-free.

You might also like: 5 Coral Reefs That Are Currently Under Threat and Dying

The post The Environmental Impacts of Reef-Safe Sunscreen and How to Choose the Best One appeared first on Earth.Org.

Herpetologists first noticed that the global frog population and other amphibian species were declining abnormally fast during the 1980s and began working tirelessly to identify the causational factors. Knowing why amphibians are dying off, and studying the unique characteristics found in those that are persevering, may give humans the key to saving these essential species. 

—

Herpetologists specialise in the study of reptiles and amphibians. Collectively, they noticed an amphibian decline in the late 1980s and set out to document the phenomenon. The effort culminated in a worldwide survey of amphibian populations published in 2004. According to the report, nearly one-third of amphibian species are at risk of extinction. More studies followed, finding that in the United States, amphibian populations are declining at an average rate of 3.7% per year. Notably, the decline was found in all populations, not just those considered endangered, including those found mainly in conservation areas.

Why are Amphibian Species in Decline?

Amphibians include frogs, toads, salamanders, and newts. They have permeable skin and live in aquatic and terrestrial habitats throughout their lifecycle. As a result, they are more vulnerable to environmental threats than other species facing population decline, like birds. Amphibians have existed on Earth for about 400 million years despite their apparent delicacy, surviving the extinction of the dinosaurs, the Industrial Revolution, and many other global changes. Their rapid disappearance today however, suggests that the rate of change in the 21st century exceeds anything they have faced in the past. Researchers concluded in a 2011 report on the role of cofactors in amphibian decline that “modern selection pressures, especially those associated with human activity, may be too severe and may have arisen too rapidly for amphibians to evolve adaptations to overcome them.”

To put it more simply, scientists have not isolated one cause of the amphibian population decline. Rather, several reasons have been implicated, and experts believe it is likely that a complex, interrelated combination of factors is responsible, including:

1. Human Exploitation

The exotic wildlife and animal trade is fuelled by the demand for amphibians as food, medicine, and exotic pets. Nearly half of amphibians available online or in pet stores were collected in the wild. According to a study published in 2021, data showed evidence of trade in at least 1,215 amphibian species, approximately 17% of all amphibians. Of these species, more than one in five are considered vulnerable, endangered, or critically endangered. After analysing the origins of traded individuals, they found that a staggering 42% of which came from the wild. 

2. Pesticides & Toxins

The widespread use of pesticides, pollutants, and other synthetic chemicals impact amphibians severely. While all species, including humans, are harmed by exposure to pollutants, amphibians are especially susceptible due to their permeable skin.

3. Invasive Species

Humans are responsible for introducing alien species to habitats worldwide. Whether it is intentional – to combat a pest species or when an exotic pet is released into the wild – or unintentional – when organisms stow away on a boat or plane – the impact on the native species is the same. A native amphibian may be preyed upon by an alien one or forced to compete for resources against an unknown foe. 

4. Disease

A single disease, Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis, known as the chytrid fungus, is considered one of the biggest threats to amphibians worldwide. An incredibly infectious disease known to infect every amphibian species, the infection attacks the frog’s skin, eventually causing heart failure.

5. Habitat Destruction

Amphibians have been devastated by humans’ alteration and destruction of their natural habitats. Most species require aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems during their life cycle; they are doubly impacted. Actions like draining wetlands for residential or agricultural development have drastically reduced the range of habitat available to amphibians. 

6. Climate Change

Changes in precipitation patterns caused by climate change alter wetland habitats, threatening amphibian populations. Another amphibian habitat is lost for every vernal pool, pond, or wetland that is struck by drought and dries up for good. 

You might also like: 12 of the Most Endangered Animals in the World

How Does the Loss of Amphibian Species Impact Humans

Salamanders, newts, toads, and frogs are all part of the human experience for those who grew up in rural or suburban areas. The emergence of frogspawn (frogs eggs) and tadpoles signals the beginning of spring. Catching the adults is a common childhood pastime. Frog calls outside the window lull people to sleep each spring, and are recorded and played through headphones to the same effect. Their mating serenades are the soundtrack to a thousand movies and a million human experiences. Though small and often shy, amphibians represent a quintessential part of nature.

The influential role of frogs in human lives is evidenced by their appearance as characters in mythology and folklore dating back thousands of years. From one of the ten plagues of Egypt to the Grimm Brothers Frog Prince to Kermit the Frog, amphibians have been represented prolifically in human civilisation throughout history. Frogs were featured twice over, as a character in stories and the critical ingredient in classic dishes. Their legs are considered a delicacy by the French and North Americans.

While only the legs are consumed, the entire frog is considered vital to research. Amphibians’ secretions have been used in traditional remedies for millennia, and scientists believe that the chemicals may hold the key to invaluable scientific advancements. As subjects, amphibians are favoured for their well-understood physiology, relative similarity to humans, and species diversity. They are used to learn about musculoskeletal, reproductive, and other bodily systems, playing a prominent role in understanding environmental endocrine disruptors. 

On a larger scale, amphibians represent a significant percentage of living creatures on the planet. Their role in ecosystem services cannot be overstated. Many ecological communities rely on these keystone species, the linchpin that other organisms largely depend upon. Removing an amphibian population changes an environment drastically through small, profound changes. Furthermore, characterised by their delicate skin, vulnerability to non-native predators, and reliance on not one but two types of habitat throughout their lifecycle, amphibians are considered an indicator species. Sensitive to changes in their habitat, they act as a measure of the environment’s health in a given locale. Consequently, their declining numbers might indicate greater global implications. 

Amphibians Decline Signals that Change is Needed to Ensure Survival

While it is undoubtedly too late for some declining species, others may have a chance. While one species dies out, another may be thriving, teaching a critical lesson about the characteristics or circumstances promoting survival. Learning from amphibians is imperative; understanding the factors causing the decline may reveal the key to halting it. Moreover, taking action by incentivising renewable energy use, combating the exotic animal trade, banning pesticides and herbicides, and more is a step toward saving amphibians and ourselves. 

Humans may be less sensitive than amphibians, but it is undeniable that the factors driving their decline already impact human health. If allowed to continue, they will eventually compromise the survival of the human species. By studying the decline of amphibians, acknowledging it as a warning signal, and reacting, humanity is given a chance to act before it is too late. 

You might also like: 11 of the Most Endangered Species in the Ocean in 2022

The post More than 30% of Amphibian Species at Risk of Imminent Extinction appeared first on Earth.Org.

Plastic pollution has risen to the forefront of public environmental awareness in the last few years. Spurred by images of turtles tangled in plastic bags, individuals have begun to evaluate their plastic consumption habits and strive to make incremental lifestyle changes to reduce plastic waste. Yet, despite their best intentions, well-meaning consumers are faced with shelves of products intentionally designed to fail or fade quickly into irrelevance. Spurred by their hunger for profit, the producers of these items employ product obsolescence strategies designed to guarantee the cycle of consumption that goes hand-in-hand with plastic waste proliferation. 

—

Product Obsolescence Strategies Defined

Planned obsolescence occurs when a manufacturer purposefully makes a product outdated or non-functional within a set period determined at conception. Take Apple for instance; the tech giant admitted to slowing down iPhone batteries to preserve battery life, causing older models to turn off unexpectedly. A 2020 consumer fraud lawsuit claimed that Apple intentionally caused older models to malfunction, knowing that would compel consumers seeking improved performance to purchase new iPhones, boosting sales by millions of devices per year. 

Even when an iPhone performs perfectly, millions of people scramble to substitute it with a slightly newer version when Apple releases a new model. This phenomenon illustrates perceived (or psychological) obsolescence, a tactic used to convince consumers that they need an updated product even though their existing product is working well. Using advertising techniques that exploit people’s psychological vulnerabilities, companies like Apple persuade consumers that their current possessions are outdated or unstylish. In another example, the fast fashion industry convinces consumers to replace useable clothing regularly to retain societal status.

These two business strategies ensure that people replace products regularly, maintain demand, and guarantee continual profit for manufacturers. In the 21st century, product obsolescence is intrinsically linked to consumerism, a pillar of the capitalistic economic model. Only a century ago, all three concepts were unheard of until they were coined in the 1900s. 

The Origins of Planned Obsolescence

The industrial revolution created immense productive powers that could finally meet the basic needs of the majority of the population. As prosperity spread, companies realised that consumerism, defined by Webster’s Dictionary as “a preoccupation with and an inclination toward buying consumer goods,” was a profitable business model. As the strategy relied on people buying new items, the goal of producing long-lasting, serviceable products was displaced. Products had to break or need replacement to ensure endless consumer desire. As retail analyst Victor Lebow posited in 1955, “Our enormously productive economy demands that we make consumption our way of life, that we convert the buying and use of goods into rituals, that we seek our spiritual satisfaction, our ego satisfaction, in consumption.… We need things consumed, burned up, replaced, and discarded at an ever-accelerating rate.” In keeping with this new mindset, leading light bulb manufacturers colluded to shorten the lifespan of all lightbulbs from 2,500 hours to 1,000 hours, and thus planned obsolescence was born.

Soon after, in the mid-1900s, plastic became a commonly-used material. By nature, it is incredibly durable, contradicting the needs of the consumptive business model. Realising this, the oil companies that manufacture plastic products released items designed to be disposable and began persuading people to throw things away and buy new ones voluntarily. Advertisements claimed that disposable items like cups, cutlery, and plastic bags were more convenient, hygienic, and affordable – the ‘better’ way of doing things. Though plastic products are nearly invulnerable during a human lifespan, taking more than 100 years to break down in a landfill, consumers were persuaded that they were obsolete after one use. Other industries, like paper and aluminium, followed suit, and suddenly product obsolescence was everywhere, written into the very fabric of day-to-day existence. From plastic and paper products to fashion, the perception that items should be quickly replaced spread like wildfire. 

Plastic Pollution Today

Today, nearly everything we own is designed to be discarded. Fridges purchased 20 years ago are still running, but those sold five years ago are already deteriorating. Fast fashion brands release 20+ new collections annually, compelling customers to buy the next best thing, far before the last best thing is unwearable. Millions of products are manufactured, purchased, used, and disposed of every day, consuming natural resources and creating massive amounts of waste. And to ensure that the cycle continues, planned and perceived obsolescence are employed, scheduling the demise of products before their creation and enforcing the practice of buying things to fit in. Notably, most of these modern products are made with one cheap, durable, and versatile material: plastic. 

People have grown accustomed to plastic in the grocery store, the bathroom, their closet, and even on their dining room table. But as researchers report that plastic has been discovered in far less desirable places, the world is beginning to take notice. Photographs of plastic-strewn beaches and deserts heaped with discarded clothing have driven home the reality that plastic takes a very long time to break down, resulting in a massive plastic waste problem. And when waste does deteriorate, it becomes microplastics, which have been discovered in the bellies of sea creatures, the snow that falls in the arctic, and even human bodies. To compound the issue, studies that expose animals to the compounds used in plastic manufacturing have indicated that there is cause for concern that plastic poses a serious risk to human health. 

You may also like, How Does Plastic Pollution Affect Humans?

Creating a Better Future

Social trends have begun to shift attitudes and behaviours away from unchecked consumption. Faced with a problem and a dearth of readily available solutions, consumers seeking a better way have focused their environmentally motivated ire on specific ideas and products. As Susan Freinkel, author of Plastic: A Toxic Love Story, pointed out, “the plastic bag has come to represent the collective sins of the age of plastic.” Consequently, legislation banning or taxing plastic bags has been implemented worldwide. 

By positioning product obsolescence strategies as the next symbol of wanton environmental destruction, organisations like HOP., a group working against product obsolescence, can mobilise the masses. The link between the oil industry and the plastic pollution crisis is indisputable, but so is the intrinsic connection between product obsolescence strategies and plastic product sales. 

Through education and awareness, they can motivate collective action. And when united individuals and organisations promote behavioural change and advocacy in consumers, environmental legislation is the eventual result. What worked with plastic bags can work with other aspects of plastic pollution, including the business strategies that encourage it. 

The post Product Obsolescence: How Businesses Promote and Perpetuate Plastic Pollution appeared first on Earth.Org.