Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

The end of coral reefs as we know them

News Feed
Friday, April 26, 2024

Paige Vickers/Vox Years ago, scientists made a devastating prediction about the ocean. Now it’s unfolding. More than five years ago, the world’s top climate scientists made a frightening prediction: If the planet warms by 1.5 degrees Celsius, relative to preindustrial times, 70 to 90 percent of coral reefs globally would die off. At 2°C, that number jumps to more than 99 percent. These researchers were essentially describing the global collapse of an entire ecosystem driven by climate change. Warm ocean water causes corals — large colonies of tiny animals — to “bleach,” meaning they lose a kind of beneficial algae that lives within their bodies. That algae gives coral its color and much of its food, so bleached corals are white and starving. Starved coral is more likely to die. In not so great news, the planet is now approaching that 1.5°C mark. In 2023, the hottest year ever measured, the average global temperature was 1.52°C above the preindustrial average, as my colleague Umair Irfan reported. That doesn’t mean Earth has officially blown past this important threshold — typically, scientists measure these sorts of averages over decades, not years — but it’s a sign that we’re getting close. David Gray/AFP via Getty Images Marine biologist Anne Hoggett swims above bleached and dead coral on the Great Barrier Reef in April 2024. David Gray/AFP via Getty Images Tourists snorkel above a section of the Great Barrier Reef full of bleached and dead coral on April 5, 2024. So, it’s no surprise that coral reefs are, indeed, collapsing. Earlier this month, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced that the planet is experiencing its fourth global “bleaching” event on record. Since early 2023, an enormous amount of coral in the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian oceans has turned ghostly white, including in places like the Great Barrier Reef and the Florida Keys. In some regions, a lot of the coral has already died. “What we are seeing now is essentially what scientists have been predicting was going to happen for more than 25 years,” Derek Manzello, a marine scientist at NOAA who leads the agency’s coral bleaching project, told Vox. The recent extreme ocean warming can’t solely be attributed to climate change, Manzello added; El Niño and even a volcanic eruption have supercharged temperatures. But coral reefs were collapsing well before the current bleaching crisis. A study published in 2021 estimated that coral “has declined by half” since the mid-20th century. In some places, like the Florida Keys, nearly 90 percent of the live corals have been lost. Past bleaching events are one source of destruction, as are other threats linked to climate change, including ocean acidification. The past and current state of corals raises an important but challenging question: If the planet continues to warm, is there a future for these iconic ecosystems? What’s become increasingly clear is that climate change doesn’t just deal a temporary blow to these animals — it will bring about the end of reefs as we know them. Will there be coral reefs 100 years from now? In the next few decades, a lot of coral will die — that’s pretty much a given. And to be clear, this reality is absolutely devastating. Regardless of whether snorkeling is your thing, reefs are essential to human well-being: Coral reefs dampen waves that hit the shore, support commercial fisheries, and drive coastal tourism around the world. They’re also home to an incredible diversity of life that inspires wonder. “I’m pretty sure that we will not see the large surface area of current reefs surviving into the future,” said Hans-Otto Pörtner, who was involved in the landmark 2018 report, led by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that predicted the downfall of tropical reefs at 1.5°C warming. “Every year is going to be worse.” NOAA A map of coral bleaching “alerts,” which indicate where the ocean is unusually warm and bleaching is likely to occur. Red areas have a risk of reef-wide bleaching; magenta and purple regions are at risk of coral death. But even as many corals die, reefs won’t exactly disappear. The 3D formation of a typical reef is made of hard corals that produce a skeleton-like structure. When the polyps die, they leave their skeletons behind. Animals that eat live coral, such as butterfly fish and certain marine snails, will likely vanish; plenty of other fish and crabs will stick around because they can hide among those skeletons. Algae will dominate on ailing reefs, as will “weedy” kinds of coral, like sea fans, that don’t typically build the reef’s structure. Simply put, dead reefs aren’t so much lifeless as they are home to a new community of less sensitive (and often more common) species. “Reefs in the future will look very different,” said Jean-Pierre Gattuso, a leading marine scientist who’s also involved with the IPCC. “Restoring coral reefs to what they were prior to mass bleaching events is impossible. That is a fact.” On the timescale of decades, even much of the reef rubble will fade away, as there will be no (or few) live corals to build new skeletons and plenty of forces to erode the ones that remain. Remarkably, about 30 percent of the carbon dioxide that we pump into the atmosphere is absorbed by the oceans. When all that CO2 reacts with water, it makes the ocean more acidic, hastening the erosion of coral skeletons and other biological structures made of calcium carbonate. Jennifer Adler for Vox Bleached staghorn coral in a nursery run by the Coral Restoration Foundation off the coast of the Florida Keys in September 2023. Buying time For decades now, hard-working and passionate scientists have been trying to reverse this downward trend — in large part, by “planting” pieces of coral on damaged reefs. This practice is similar to planting saplings in a logged forest. In reef restoration, many scientists and environmental advocates see hope and a future for coral reefs. But these efforts come with one major limitation: If the oceans continue to grow hotter, many of those planted corals will die too. Last fall, I dived a handful of reefs in the Florida Keys where thousands of pieces of elkhorn and staghorn — iconic, reef-building corals — had been planted. Nearly all of them were bleached, dead, or dying. “When are [we] going to stop pretending that coral reefs can be restored when sea temperatures continue to rise and spike at lethal levels?” Terry Hughes, one of the world’s leading coral reef ecologists, wrote on X. Ultimately, the only real solution is reducing carbon emissions. Period. Pretty much every marine scientist I’ve talked to agrees. “Without international cooperation to break our dependence on fossil fuels, coral bleaching events are only going to continue to increase in severity and frequency,” Manzello said. Echoing his concern, Pörtner said: “We really have no choice but to stop climate change.” Jennifer Adler for Vox A collection of bleached “planted” staghorn coral on a reef in Florida in September 2023. But in the meantime, other stuff can help. Planting pieces of coral can work if those corals are more tolerant to threats like extreme heat or disease. To that end, researchers are trying to breed more heat-resistant individuals or identify those that are naturally more tolerant to stress — not only heat, but disease. Even after extreme bleaching events, many corals survive, according to Jason Spadaro, a restoration expert at Florida’s Mote Marine Laboratory. (“Massive” corals, which look a bit like boulders, had high rates of survival following recent bleaching in Florida, Spadaro said.) Scientists also see an urgent need to curb other, non-climate related threats, like water pollution and intensive fishing. “To give corals the best possible chance, we need to reduce every other stressor impacting reefs that we can control,” Manzello told Vox. These efforts alone will not save reefs, but they’ll buy time, experts say, helping corals hold on until emissions fall. If those interventions work — and if countries step up their climate commitments — future generations will still get to experience at least some version of these majestic, life-sustaining ecosystems. This story appeared originally in Today, Explained, Vox’s flagship daily newsletter. Sign up here for future editions.

An illustration of scuba divers wearing wetsuits and yellow fins swimming over the sea floor, which is strewn with white coral and gravestones.
Paige Vickers/Vox

Years ago, scientists made a devastating prediction about the ocean. Now it’s unfolding.

More than five years ago, the world’s top climate scientists made a frightening prediction: If the planet warms by 1.5 degrees Celsius, relative to preindustrial times, 70 to 90 percent of coral reefs globally would die off. At 2°C, that number jumps to more than 99 percent.

These researchers were essentially describing the global collapse of an entire ecosystem driven by climate change. Warm ocean water causes corals — large colonies of tiny animals — to “bleach,” meaning they lose a kind of beneficial algae that lives within their bodies. That algae gives coral its color and much of its food, so bleached corals are white and starving. Starved coral is more likely to die.

In not so great news, the planet is now approaching that 1.5°C mark. In 2023, the hottest year ever measured, the average global temperature was 1.52°C above the preindustrial average, as my colleague Umair Irfan reported. That doesn’t mean Earth has officially blown past this important threshold — typically, scientists measure these sorts of averages over decades, not years — but it’s a sign that we’re getting close.

A person wearing a snorkel, black wet suit, and flippers, swims above a coral reef while filming with an underwater camera. David Gray/AFP via Getty Images
Marine biologist Anne Hoggett swims above bleached and dead coral on the Great Barrier Reef in April 2024.
A photo taken from above shows several figures in wet suits and fins swimming in clear blue water above a multi-colored ref with many white spots. David Gray/AFP via Getty Images
Tourists snorkel above a section of the Great Barrier Reef full of bleached and dead coral on April 5, 2024.

So, it’s no surprise that coral reefs are, indeed, collapsing. Earlier this month, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced that the planet is experiencing its fourth global “bleaching” event on record. Since early 2023, an enormous amount of coral in the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian oceans has turned ghostly white, including in places like the Great Barrier Reef and the Florida Keys. In some regions, a lot of the coral has already died.

“What we are seeing now is essentially what scientists have been predicting was going to happen for more than 25 years,” Derek Manzello, a marine scientist at NOAA who leads the agency’s coral bleaching project, told Vox. The recent extreme ocean warming can’t solely be attributed to climate change, Manzello added; El Niño and even a volcanic eruption have supercharged temperatures.

But coral reefs were collapsing well before the current bleaching crisis. A study published in 2021 estimated that coral “has declined by half” since the mid-20th century. In some places, like the Florida Keys, nearly 90 percent of the live corals have been lost. Past bleaching events are one source of destruction, as are other threats linked to climate change, including ocean acidification.

The past and current state of corals raises an important but challenging question: If the planet continues to warm, is there a future for these iconic ecosystems?

What’s become increasingly clear is that climate change doesn’t just deal a temporary blow to these animals — it will bring about the end of reefs as we know them.

Will there be coral reefs 100 years from now?

In the next few decades, a lot of coral will die — that’s pretty much a given. And to be clear, this reality is absolutely devastating. Regardless of whether snorkeling is your thing, reefs are essential to human well-being: Coral reefs dampen waves that hit the shore, support commercial fisheries, and drive coastal tourism around the world. They’re also home to an incredible diversity of life that inspires wonder.

“I’m pretty sure that we will not see the large surface area of current reefs surviving into the future,” said Hans-Otto Pörtner, who was involved in the landmark 2018 report, led by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that predicted the downfall of tropical reefs at 1.5°C warming. “Every year is going to be worse.”

 NOAA
A map of coral bleaching “alerts,” which indicate where the ocean is unusually warm and bleaching is likely to occur. Red areas have a risk of reef-wide bleaching; magenta and purple regions are at risk of coral death.

But even as many corals die, reefs won’t exactly disappear. The 3D formation of a typical reef is made of hard corals that produce a skeleton-like structure. When the polyps die, they leave their skeletons behind. Animals that eat live coral, such as butterfly fish and certain marine snails, will likely vanish; plenty of other fish and crabs will stick around because they can hide among those skeletons. Algae will dominate on ailing reefs, as will “weedy” kinds of coral, like sea fans, that don’t typically build the reef’s structure.

Simply put, dead reefs aren’t so much lifeless as they are home to a new community of less sensitive (and often more common) species.

“Reefs in the future will look very different,” said Jean-Pierre Gattuso, a leading marine scientist who’s also involved with the IPCC. “Restoring coral reefs to what they were prior to mass bleaching events is impossible. That is a fact.”

On the timescale of decades, even much of the reef rubble will fade away, as there will be no (or few) live corals to build new skeletons and plenty of forces to erode the ones that remain. Remarkably, about 30 percent of the carbon dioxide that we pump into the atmosphere is absorbed by the oceans. When all that CO2 reacts with water, it makes the ocean more acidic, hastening the erosion of coral skeletons and other biological structures made of calcium carbonate.

A scuba diver swims through an underwater cluster of staghorn coral, which resemble floating trees with branches similar to antlers. Jennifer Adler for Vox
Bleached staghorn coral in a nursery run by the Coral Restoration Foundation off the coast of the Florida Keys in September 2023.

Buying time

For decades now, hard-working and passionate scientists have been trying to reverse this downward trend — in large part, by “planting” pieces of coral on damaged reefs. This practice is similar to planting saplings in a logged forest. In reef restoration, many scientists and environmental advocates see hope and a future for coral reefs.

But these efforts come with one major limitation: If the oceans continue to grow hotter, many of those planted corals will die too. Last fall, I dived a handful of reefs in the Florida Keys where thousands of pieces of elkhorn and staghorn — iconic, reef-building corals — had been planted. Nearly all of them were bleached, dead, or dying.

“When are [we] going to stop pretending that coral reefs can be restored when sea temperatures continue to rise and spike at lethal levels?” Terry Hughes, one of the world’s leading coral reef ecologists, wrote on X.

Ultimately, the only real solution is reducing carbon emissions. Period. Pretty much every marine scientist I’ve talked to agrees. “Without international cooperation to break our dependence on fossil fuels, coral bleaching events are only going to continue to increase in severity and frequency,” Manzello said. Echoing his concern, Pörtner said: “We really have no choice but to stop climate change.”

From above, a group of bleached pieces of staghorn coral looks like a boneyard. Jennifer Adler for Vox
A collection of bleached “planted” staghorn coral on a reef in Florida in September 2023.

But in the meantime, other stuff can help.

Planting pieces of coral can work if those corals are more tolerant to threats like extreme heat or disease. To that end, researchers are trying to breed more heat-resistant individuals or identify those that are naturally more tolerant to stress — not only heat, but disease. Even after extreme bleaching events, many corals survive, according to Jason Spadaro, a restoration expert at Florida’s Mote Marine Laboratory. (“Massive” corals, which look a bit like boulders, had high rates of survival following recent bleaching in Florida, Spadaro said.)

Scientists also see an urgent need to curb other, non-climate related threats, like water pollution and intensive fishing. “To give corals the best possible chance, we need to reduce every other stressor impacting reefs that we can control,” Manzello told Vox.

These efforts alone will not save reefs, but they’ll buy time, experts say, helping corals hold on until emissions fall. If those interventions work — and if countries step up their climate commitments — future generations will still get to experience at least some version of these majestic, life-sustaining ecosystems.

This story appeared originally in Today, Explained, Vox’s flagship daily newsletter. Sign up here for future editions.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Some Dinosaurs Evolved to Be Warm-Blooded 180 Million Years Ago, Study Suggests

Researchers studied the geographic distribution of dinosaurs to draw conclusions about whether they could regulate their internal temperatures

An artist's rendering of a feathered dinosuar in the snow. Feathers would have allowed dinosaurs, ancestors of birds, to trap their body heat in cold climates. Davide Bonadonna / Universidade de Vigo / UCL Two major groups of dinosaurs may have been warm-blooded—having evolved the ability to regulate their body temperatures—around 180 million years ago, according to a new study. Scientists used to think that all dinosaurs were cold-blooded, meaning that, like modern lizards, their body temperatures were dependent on their surroundings. While scientists have since discovered that some dinosaurs were actually warm-blooded, they haven’t been able to pinpoint when this adaptation evolved, according to a statement from University College London. The new findings suggest that theropods, a group of mostly carnivorous dinosaurs including Tyrannosaurus rex and Velociraptor, as well as the ornithischians, which include the mostly plant-eating relatives of Stegosaurus and Triceratops, may have both developed warm-bloodedness in the early Jurassic Period. This change might have been prompted by global warming that followed volcanic eruptions, according to the results published Wednesday in the journal Current Biology. The study is the “first real attempt to quantify broad patterns that some of us had thought about previously,” Anthony Fiorillo, executive director of the New Mexico Museum of Natural History & Science who was not involved in the work, tells CNN’s Katie Hunt. “Their modeling helps create a robustness to our biogeographical understanding of dinosaurs and their related physiology.” Warm-blooded animals, which include mammals and birds, use energy from food to maintain a constant body temperature. Their bodies can shiver to generate heat, and they may sweat, pant or dilate their blood vessels to cool off. As a result, these animals can live in a wide range of environments. On the other hand, cold-blooded creatures must move to different environments to control their body temperature. They might lie in the sun to warm up and move under a rock or into the water to cool off. Previous work had uncovered evidence of warm-bloodedness in both theropods and ornithischians, such as feathers that trap body heat, according to the university’s statement. In the new study, the researchers studied the geographic spread of dinosaurs during the Mesozoic Era, which lasted from 230 million to 66 million years ago, by examining 1,000 fossils, climate models and dinosaur evolutionary trees. They found that theropods and ornithischians lived in wide-ranging climates, and during the early Jurassic, these two groups migrated to colder areas. This suggested they had developed the ability to generate their own heat. “If something is capable of living in the Arctic, or very cold regions, it must have some way of heating up,” Alfio Allesandro Chiarenza, a co-author of the study and a paleontologist at University College London, tells Adithi Ramakrishnan of the Associated Press (AP). Long-necked sauropods, on the other hand, which include the Brontosaurus, seemed restricted to areas with higher temperatures. The team suggests this means sauropods could have been cold-blooded. “It reconciles well with what we imagine about their ecology,” Chiarenza says to CNN. “They were the biggest terrestrial animals that ever lived. They probably would have overheated if they were hot-blooded.” At around the same time, volcanic eruptions led to global warming and the extinction of some plant species. “The adoption of endothermy, perhaps a result of this environmental crisis, may have enabled theropods and ornithischians to thrive in colder environments, allowing them to be highly active and sustain activity over longer periods, to develop and grow faster and produce more offspring,” Chiarenza says in the statement. Jasmina Wiemann, a paleobiologist at the Field Museum of Natural History who was not involved in the new research, published a study in 2022 that came to a different conclusion: Based on oxygen intake in dinosaur fossils, she found that ornithischians were more likely cold-blooded, while sauropods were more likely warm-blooded. She tells the AP that considering information on dinosaurs’ body temperatures and diets, not just their geographic distribution, can help scientists understand when dinosaurs evolved to be warm-blooded. Get the latest stories in your inbox every weekday.

‘Pesticides by stealth’: garden soil conditioners killing worms, experts fear

Even products marketed as ‘organic’ may be toxic, say campaigners, with risks for the wider ecosystemGardeners are inadvertently killing scores of earthworms with soil conditioners marketed as “organic”, experts fear, as they call for tighter regulation on products that poison the invertebrates.Earthworms may appear humble, but Charles Darwin thought their work in improving soil structure and fertility was so important he devoted his final book to them and said: “It may be doubted if there are any other animals which have played such an important part in the history of the world as these lowly organised creatures.” Continue reading...

Gardeners are inadvertently killing scores of earthworms with soil conditioners marketed as “organic”, experts fear, as they call for tighter regulation on products that poison the invertebrates.Earthworms may appear humble, but Charles Darwin thought their work in improving soil structure and fertility was so important he devoted his final book to them and said: “It may be doubted if there are any other animals which have played such an important part in the history of the world as these lowly organised creatures.”However, some gardeners who want a tidy lawn remove worm casts, which can be viewed as unsightly, particularly if the casts – made of the worms’ excrement – are squashed and spread over the surface.Dozens of products available to gardeners and greenkeepers say they combat these casts, reducing the time-consuming task of their manual removal. However, most contain saponins, which have been found to be highly toxic to earthworms. Some of these are marketed as “organic soil conditioner” with no mention of the deadly effect they have on worms. Others promise to “irritate and deter” worms, pushing them to deeper soil – not mentioning the active ingredient that could kill them.Despite their potential toxicity to garden creatures, soil conditioners do not go through the same rigorous risk assessments as pesticides, experts say, and are lightly regulated.Some gardeners who want a tidy lawn remove worm casts. Photograph: Universal Images Group/UIG/Getty ImagesWorms ingest dead plant material and break it down into nutrients, and healthy soil is important for a thriving garden and the wider ecosystem. The Royal Horticultural Society points out that casts are good for the soil and can be used as a nutrient-rich potting medium, and it discourages their removal.Worms are thought to be under threat: though studies into their populations are scarce, recent research suggests numbers in the UK may have fallen by about a third in the past 25 years.Prof Dave Goulson, a biologist at the University of Sussex, has written extensively on gardening in symbiosis with invertebrates, and has been investigating the soil products. He told the Guardian: “Dozens of products are being sold to gardeners and groundskeepers, especially [at] golf courses, to combat worm casts. Many contain saponins, found in one scientific study to be ‘highly toxic’ to earthworms.“The products are widely marketed online, with some bulk products obviously aimed at professional greenkeepers, other smaller bottles aimed at gardeners. The saponin usually seems to derive from ‘tea seed’, so is an organic product, but that doesn’t mean it is harmless: botulinum toxin and cyanide are organic. Groundskeepers should not be allowed to poison earthworms while pretending to ‘condition’ the soil. It seems to be pesticides by stealth.”skip past newsletter promotionThe planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essentialPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionSome of the products to combat worm casts are aimed at professional greenkeepers, such as at golf courses. Photograph: Lionel Bonaventure/AFP/Getty ImagesCampaigners are calling for the government to investigate these products, suspending their use until their effect on earthworms and other wildlife is fully understood.Nick Mole, a policy officer at Pesticide Action UK, said: “Fertilisers and soil conditioners aren’t subject to anywhere near the same level of scrutiny as pesticides. They don’t appear to go through a risk assessment process to ascertain if they are harmful to non-target species such as earthworms, which is highly concerning given how widely they are used.“Any substance that is intentionally released into the natural environment has the potential to cause harm, even those labelled as organic. Now that the alarm bells have been sounded the UK government must act quickly to suspend use of these products while they investigate further, including conducting thorough risk assessments looking at the impact of these products on earthworms and other wildlife, including aquatic species. Or will the government sit on its hands for another 10 years, as it did with neonicotinoids and bees?”A Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs spokesperson said: “Decisions on the use of pesticides are based on careful scientific assessment of the risks. Pesticides are only allowed on to the market if they meet strict environmental requirements and pose no threat to human health.”

Antarctica's Ozone Hole Is Persisting Later Into the Year, Raising Concerns for Wildlife

As a result of the longer-lasting hole, harmful ultraviolet radiation is reaching Earth during a time when young penguins and seals are more vulnerable, scientists say

While penguins have feathers that shield their skin from radiation, their eyes remain unprotected. Increased ultraviolet radiation exposure could also have harmful effects for Antarctic organisms like seals, krill and plankton, per a new paper. Wolfgang Kaehler / LightRocket via Getty Images A hole in the ozone layer that appears annually over Antarctica is persisting later into each year, and biologists say this puts wildlife at risk. The gap allows more ultraviolet B radiation onto the planet, which threatens animals with eye damage and other health impacts, per a paper published last week in the journal Global Change Biology. Each year, the ozone hole typically peaks in size between September and October, when ice coverage reflects much of the sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays away. But in the last four years, the hole has remained into the Southern Hemisphere’s summer in December, in part due to climate change-fueled bush fires in Australia and natural volcanic eruptions. As a result, more radiation from the sun is reaching Earth’s surface at a time when snow and ice is melting, leaving more plants and animals exposed. “Whilst ozone is recovering, we’ve seen these four years of ozone holes that have been large but also have [stayed open] into December, which is the thing that’s most concerning for us as biologists,” Sharon Robinson, first author of the study and a climate change biologist at the University of Wollongong in Australia, tells the Sydney Morning Herald’s Bianca Hall. “Because that’s when most of the life comes to life in Antarctica each summer. In the winter, everything’s under snow and ice.” The ozone layer is a thin blanket in the stratosphere made of molecules with three oxygen atoms. It absorbs harmful UVB light from the sun, which can cause cancer and eye damage in humans, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Scientists realized in the 1970s that this protective sheen was wearing away as a result of human activity. The ozone “hole” isn’t a total absence of ozone—it’s a spot in the layer where concentrations of the protective gas have dropped below a certain historical level. In 1987, countries around the world adopted the Montreal Protocol, agreeing to phase out the use of chemicals harmful to the ozone layer, including chlorofluorocarbons, used in aerosol sprays, firefighting foams, refrigerants and other materials. This agreement was highly effective—the ozone hole reached its peak size in 2006 and has been shrinking since then. Now, scientists think the ozone layer could fully recover by the middle of the century. “When I tell people I work on the ozone hole, they go: ‘Oh, isn’t that better now?” Robinson tells BBC News’ Victoria Gill. But the fact that the hole is lasting longer provides “a wake-up call,” Jim Haywood, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Exeter in England who did not contribute to the findings, tells the publication. “Society cannot be complacent about our achievements in tackling it.” A diagram showing how organisms are affected by lower levels of ozone in the summer, when the sun is higher in the sky and less ice exists to reflect radiation away. Robinson et al., Global Change Biology, 2024 While the ozone layer is recovering, events on Earth—both human-caused and natural—are still delaying that process. Australian bushfires in 2019 and 2020, which scorched as much as 70,000 square miles of land and impacted nearly three billion animals, released particles called aerosols into the air that can damage the ozone layer. “With climate change, one of the things we’re seeing is more frequent bushfires,” Robinson says to the Sydney Morning Herald. “We’ll always have bushfires, but we’re having more of them because it’s drier and warmer and the weather conditions are more extreme.” The massive Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai volcanic eruption in Tonga in 2022 also spewed aerosols. Even rocket launches and geoengineering projects using aerosols have the potential to further delay the ozone’s recovery, per the paper. These events have likely contributed to the ozone hole over Antarctica staying open later into the year, the scientists write. Sea ice extent drops by about 25 percent between early October and early December—and since ozone depletion has recently continued into this period of reduced ice coverage, animals are being left more vulnerable, per the paper. Penguins and seals are protected from sunburn because of their feathers and fur, but their eyes have no such shield. However, few studies have examined the impacts of ultraviolet radiation exposure on animals—and the ones that do probe this issue have usually been conducted in zoos, the study authors write in the Conversation. “More UV radiation in early summer could be particularly damaging to young animals, such as penguin chicks and seal pups who hatch or are born in late spring,” they write in the Conversation. Increased radiation exposure can inhibit the photosynthesis of plankton, per the paper. Antarctic krill, which feed on plankton, might dive deeper into the water to escape the harmful rays, and studies have also found increased death rates in krill larvae after ultraviolet radiation exposure. These organisms form the basis of the Antarctic food chain, and impacts to them could in turn affect seabirds, seals, penguins and whales, per BBC News. Additionally, more sea ice is melting in the Antarctic due to global warming, making the ozone hole more harmful, the study authors note. “The biggest thing we can do to help Antarctica is to act on climate change—reduce carbon emissions as quickly as possible so we have fewer bushfires and don’t put additional pressure on ozone layer recovery,” Robinson tells BBC News. Get the latest stories in your inbox every weekday.

If Corporations Are People, Then Animals Should Be Too

The terrifying truth of the climate and mass extinction crises is that we don’t understand all that we stand to lose. And without extraordinary acts of imagination and foresight, as a society, we won’t understand what’s being lost till it’s too late—at which time we’ll have to look back at what we might have done with a heartbreak and remorse that have no remedy. So we need to protect the living world with the best tool we have: the law.Evolution is slow, while the climate is changing at a breakneck pace. For organisms like elephants and whales, who can live as long as we do, or trees, who live much longer, both the path to potential adaptation to this rapidly morphing planet and the path to our understanding may stretch beyond any time frame that could help us to save them before the clock strikes midnight. Small animals, whose lives and reproductive cycles tend to be shorter, can be more readily studied across generations. Some researchers have seen signs of resilience: Mother zebra finches in Australia, one scientist found, warn the embryos inside their eggs of warming conditions outside by uttering certain calls. The chicks those embryos hatch into have lower birth weights than those who weren’t exposed to the mothers’ calls, which helps the young birds stay cool in hot weather. Lizards in Miami appeared to lower their cold-tolerance thresholds in response to a cold snap in 2020, which might defend against future environmental fluctuations; certain male dragonflies grow paler in warmer weather, losing some of the bright ornamentation that attracts females but making them less vulnerable to overheating.But examples of seemingly speedy accommodation are tiny flags fluttering on a battlefield where the overwhelming outlook for biodiversity is catastrophic. Instead of shifting gradually over thousands or even millions of years, environments are being transformed so fast that adaptive mechanisms don’t have the opportunity to kick in. In many cases, due to human-caused habitat loss and other pressures, of which the unstable climate is a massive threat multiplier, strategies that may have saved other life forms historically are no longer available to them: Pikas, for instance—cute little squeaking mammals native to western North America and Asia—may be able to move up a mountain to reach colder climes as the lower elevations get too hot, but if they reach the peak and it gets hot too, well … there’s nothing left for that wingless pika but the bare blue sky. The desert where I live is getting too hot even for arid-adapted wildlife—a lizard that had thrived in Arizona’s Mule Mountains for three million years is now newly believed extinct, and plants from the small acuña cactus to the Seussian Joshua tree are struggling to hang on.Cases abound of creatures and plants whose biological profiles appear to be setting them up for climate-driven oblivion: Crocodilians and most turtles don’t have sex chromosomes, so whether they’re born male or female depends on the temperature of the sand surrounding their eggs. A study of green sea turtles in the Great Barrier Reef in 2018 found that 99 percent of hatchlings were female, as opposed to 87 percent of adults—a ratio that could mean there already aren’t enough males for reproduction. Reef-building corals with low resistance to bleaching and death, such as staghorn and elkhorn, are at extremely high risk, and though corals occupy less than 1 percent of the ocean floor, they’re home to one-quarter of global marine diversity. Shrimplike krill, whose Antarctic habitat is projected to shrink up to 80 percent by 2100, feed most of the larger denizens of the Southern Ocean, from fish to seabirds like penguins to seals and cetaceans, and account for 96 percent of some species’ diets. The total biomass of krill is greater than that of any other multicellular animal, and these animals are a key storage bank for carbon dioxide. The humble freshwater mussels who make up the most endangered group of U.S. organisms help keep our rivers clean, but warming waters magnify the myriad threats they already face; three-quarters of flowering plants depend on pollinators, currently in decline around the globe, who happen to be critical to one out of three bites of our food. And though some plant species can migrate to escape inhospitable conditions, that migration occurs—since individuals don’t move—over generations via seed dispersal. The list of our dependencies on the other beings with whom we’ve coevolved is nearly infinite. So visionary policy is called for to protect those other beings and systems—not only for their intrinsic and cultural value but because they’re our life support, worth far more to our continued welfare intact than liquidated for short-term profit. If the goal is a livable future, for which we need to achieve a paradigm shift from exploitation to conservation, the services these networks of life supply need to be fully and properly valued. Their right to exist has to be enshrined in law.Both domestically and internationally, species and ecosystems need to be endowed with legal standing to give local and native stewards the tools to save them from the depredations of industry in the short term and sustain them over the long. Luckily, bestowing legal standing on extra-human parties isn’t a fanciful idea: The U.S. Supreme Court did exactly that in the 2010 case known as Citizens United, when it declared that corporations were legal persons—a decision that hobbled American democracy but also set a neat precedent for extending legal personhood to nonhuman entities. And corporations are clearly more abstract and disembodied than animals: Just a couple of weeks ago scientists and philosophers from many nations published the New York Declaration on Animal Consciousness, which argues for the likelihood of consciousness in all vertebrates and many invertebrates, including cephalopods and insects.  In New Zealand, a river and a rainforest have been awarded personhood; the people of Ecuador, in 2008, voted to modify their Constitution to recognize the right of nature to exist and flourish; in the United States, the Yurok tribe gave personhood to the Klamath River under tribal law in 2019; and in 2010 Pittsburgh became the first major city to recognize the rights of nature. Those rights have also been enacted into law or invoked by courts in Bolivia, Panama, and India. A summit held in mid-April at Brown University was aimed at elevating the agency and visibility of the more-than-human world in climate negotiations. And if species and ecosystems are recognized as entities with rights, their destruction can become a prosecutable offense. Accountability for the violence of what some call “ecocide” should be embedded in international law and civil and criminal codes. Here too, early inroads are being made, for example by the European Union, countries like Finland and Sweden, and the International Criminal Court. Establishing the responsibility of both private and public actors for the lives and natural systems they destroy—for deforestation, deadly heat domes, red tides, mountaintop-removal coal mining in Appalachia, or cobalt mining in Congo, to name only a few culprits—is reasonable and fair. And the prerequisite to that is affirming in our legal codes that all of the life forms surrounding us have value. They’re connected to each other and to our own survival in ways we’ve just begun to fathom. And unless we act swiftly, we may never have the chance to learn more.

The terrifying truth of the climate and mass extinction crises is that we don’t understand all that we stand to lose. And without extraordinary acts of imagination and foresight, as a society, we won’t understand what’s being lost till it’s too late—at which time we’ll have to look back at what we might have done with a heartbreak and remorse that have no remedy. So we need to protect the living world with the best tool we have: the law.Evolution is slow, while the climate is changing at a breakneck pace. For organisms like elephants and whales, who can live as long as we do, or trees, who live much longer, both the path to potential adaptation to this rapidly morphing planet and the path to our understanding may stretch beyond any time frame that could help us to save them before the clock strikes midnight. Small animals, whose lives and reproductive cycles tend to be shorter, can be more readily studied across generations. Some researchers have seen signs of resilience: Mother zebra finches in Australia, one scientist found, warn the embryos inside their eggs of warming conditions outside by uttering certain calls. The chicks those embryos hatch into have lower birth weights than those who weren’t exposed to the mothers’ calls, which helps the young birds stay cool in hot weather. Lizards in Miami appeared to lower their cold-tolerance thresholds in response to a cold snap in 2020, which might defend against future environmental fluctuations; certain male dragonflies grow paler in warmer weather, losing some of the bright ornamentation that attracts females but making them less vulnerable to overheating.But examples of seemingly speedy accommodation are tiny flags fluttering on a battlefield where the overwhelming outlook for biodiversity is catastrophic. Instead of shifting gradually over thousands or even millions of years, environments are being transformed so fast that adaptive mechanisms don’t have the opportunity to kick in. In many cases, due to human-caused habitat loss and other pressures, of which the unstable climate is a massive threat multiplier, strategies that may have saved other life forms historically are no longer available to them: Pikas, for instance—cute little squeaking mammals native to western North America and Asia—may be able to move up a mountain to reach colder climes as the lower elevations get too hot, but if they reach the peak and it gets hot too, well … there’s nothing left for that wingless pika but the bare blue sky. The desert where I live is getting too hot even for arid-adapted wildlife—a lizard that had thrived in Arizona’s Mule Mountains for three million years is now newly believed extinct, and plants from the small acuña cactus to the Seussian Joshua tree are struggling to hang on.Cases abound of creatures and plants whose biological profiles appear to be setting them up for climate-driven oblivion: Crocodilians and most turtles don’t have sex chromosomes, so whether they’re born male or female depends on the temperature of the sand surrounding their eggs. A study of green sea turtles in the Great Barrier Reef in 2018 found that 99 percent of hatchlings were female, as opposed to 87 percent of adults—a ratio that could mean there already aren’t enough males for reproduction. Reef-building corals with low resistance to bleaching and death, such as staghorn and elkhorn, are at extremely high risk, and though corals occupy less than 1 percent of the ocean floor, they’re home to one-quarter of global marine diversity. Shrimplike krill, whose Antarctic habitat is projected to shrink up to 80 percent by 2100, feed most of the larger denizens of the Southern Ocean, from fish to seabirds like penguins to seals and cetaceans, and account for 96 percent of some species’ diets. The total biomass of krill is greater than that of any other multicellular animal, and these animals are a key storage bank for carbon dioxide. The humble freshwater mussels who make up the most endangered group of U.S. organisms help keep our rivers clean, but warming waters magnify the myriad threats they already face; three-quarters of flowering plants depend on pollinators, currently in decline around the globe, who happen to be critical to one out of three bites of our food. And though some plant species can migrate to escape inhospitable conditions, that migration occurs—since individuals don’t move—over generations via seed dispersal. The list of our dependencies on the other beings with whom we’ve coevolved is nearly infinite. So visionary policy is called for to protect those other beings and systems—not only for their intrinsic and cultural value but because they’re our life support, worth far more to our continued welfare intact than liquidated for short-term profit. If the goal is a livable future, for which we need to achieve a paradigm shift from exploitation to conservation, the services these networks of life supply need to be fully and properly valued. Their right to exist has to be enshrined in law.Both domestically and internationally, species and ecosystems need to be endowed with legal standing to give local and native stewards the tools to save them from the depredations of industry in the short term and sustain them over the long. Luckily, bestowing legal standing on extra-human parties isn’t a fanciful idea: The U.S. Supreme Court did exactly that in the 2010 case known as Citizens United, when it declared that corporations were legal persons—a decision that hobbled American democracy but also set a neat precedent for extending legal personhood to nonhuman entities. And corporations are clearly more abstract and disembodied than animals: Just a couple of weeks ago scientists and philosophers from many nations published the New York Declaration on Animal Consciousness, which argues for the likelihood of consciousness in all vertebrates and many invertebrates, including cephalopods and insects.  In New Zealand, a river and a rainforest have been awarded personhood; the people of Ecuador, in 2008, voted to modify their Constitution to recognize the right of nature to exist and flourish; in the United States, the Yurok tribe gave personhood to the Klamath River under tribal law in 2019; and in 2010 Pittsburgh became the first major city to recognize the rights of nature. Those rights have also been enacted into law or invoked by courts in Bolivia, Panama, and India. A summit held in mid-April at Brown University was aimed at elevating the agency and visibility of the more-than-human world in climate negotiations. And if species and ecosystems are recognized as entities with rights, their destruction can become a prosecutable offense. Accountability for the violence of what some call “ecocide” should be embedded in international law and civil and criminal codes. Here too, early inroads are being made, for example by the European Union, countries like Finland and Sweden, and the International Criminal Court. Establishing the responsibility of both private and public actors for the lives and natural systems they destroy—for deforestation, deadly heat domes, red tides, mountaintop-removal coal mining in Appalachia, or cobalt mining in Congo, to name only a few culprits—is reasonable and fair. And the prerequisite to that is affirming in our legal codes that all of the life forms surrounding us have value. They’re connected to each other and to our own survival in ways we’ve just begun to fathom. And unless we act swiftly, we may never have the chance to learn more.

In South Africa, Tigers and Other Captive Predators Are Still Exploited for Profit. Legislation Offers Pitiful Protection

The captive predator industry threatens the welfare of thousands of big cats kept for entertainment, hunting, and commercial trade of live animals and their body parts. The post In South Africa, Tigers and Other Captive Predators Are Still Exploited for Profit. Legislation Offers Pitiful Protection appeared first on The Revelator.

In South Africa, an insatiable desire for lions — whether to view the big cats in captivity, interact with cubs, hunt them for sport, or trade in their body parts — has created an explosion in their captive populations. Approximately 8,000-10,000 lions are now kept in captivity across the country, compared to the estimated 3,490 wild lions across our reserves and national parks. Activists and the media have given extensive attention to this cruel, inhumane industry, but significantly less is known about the other exotic cat species bred, kept, traded, and even hunted for this burgeoning industry built on greed and cruelty. For instance, in 2022 the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment confirmed that at least 70 captive facilities kept 463 tigers across South Africa. Yes, tigers — the same endangered Asian big cats subject to intense conservation efforts, with a wild population estimated at just 5,500 animals. Those of us working against this captive trade suspect the actual number of tigers in the country is much higher, as the department does not require captive facilities to register the big cats. The data provided by provincial authorities is only as accurate as the information provided by willing facilities. And tigers are just one element of this industry. Across the country approximately 400 captive facilities keep indigenous and exotic cats of multiple species for tourism activities, breeding, trading in live animals and their body parts, and hunting. Captive African lion. Stephanie Klarmann, Blood Lions The Blood Lions documentary and subsequent campaign — I’m part of the team and the campaign coordinator — has been instrumental in exposing the cruel realities of the captive predator industry. Our work focuses on conducting research and lobbying in both public and government spheres to influence policy. An important and necessary challenge we now face is not only pushing against the captive lion industry and all its associated activities, but also addressing the proliferation of other big cat species in captivity for commercial gain. South Africa’s Contribution to the Legal and Illegal Trade in Body Parts Tigers bred in South Africa don’t always stay here. From 2012 to 2022[1], South Africa exported a minimum of 397 live tigers and 101 tiger body parts and hunting trophies, according to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species trade database.[2] And that’s just the so-called legal trade. I recently spoke with Karl Ammann, an environmental photographer and investigative filmmaker who has spent years uncovering the ties between South Africa and the international wildlife trade. Through his work in Vietnam, he’s interviewed dealers who sell tiger “cake” (boiled-down tiger bone) for use in traditional medicine. They’ve revealed that their stock is primarily imported from South Africa. Some were even able to provide shipment dates when they expected stock to arrive, all without legitimate documentation. The demand for wildlife products like this threatens multiple species. With tiger bone supplies dwindling and an ever-increasing demand for bones for medicinal purposes, traffickers have turned to lion bones sourced from captive-bred lions in South Africa as substitutes. Meanwhile the trade in live tigers bred in South Africa and destined for Southeast Asia is thriving, according to Ammann. His investigations show that Southeast Asian breeding farms lose a significant number of cubs to inbreeding, making the live trade from South Africa necessary to supplement the captive gene pool. This shouldn’t be allowed, as tigers are protected under CITES Appendix I, which restricts virtually all trade in the species. But exporters game the system by using the CITES Z code, which declares the animals they’re shipping are destined for zoos and public display. “The fact is, they are all for primarily commercial purposes, which should not be possible,” says Ammann. Concurrent Legislation Hampers Regulation of the Captive Industry South African authorities have announced their intent to close the commercial captive lion industry. But conservationists and welfare advocacy groups remain concerned. We worry that this will turn increased attention to the breeding, keeping, and trading of exotic big cats like tigers, jaguars, black leopards and pumas. South African law currently considers these big cats “alien species” due to their natural occurrence outside of South Africa; but possessing, breeding, trading, and controlling these species is still considered a restricted activity under Chapter 7 of our Threatened or Protected Species Regulations (TOPS). Dr. Louise de Waal, campaign manager of Blood Lions, highlights that this is a gray area, as South Africa’s provinces have the autonomy to implement national legislation differently regarding exotic species. Provinces may or may not implement national legislation concurrently with their own local laws; it’s up to them. For example, provincial authorities in Gauteng, Limpopo and Eastern Cape do not require permits to possess exotic animals in captivity. However, owners in these provinces must still hold permits for other restricted activities, such as transport, for exotic species to move within and between provinces, although violations have been reported. This issue has become prevalent in Gauteng, where several instances of inappropriate, negligent, and cruel tiger ownership have been exposed by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and in the media. In January 2023 a privately owned tiger escaped its cage before attacking one person and killing two dogs in Walkerville. Later that same month, a second tiger escaped in a residential area in Edenvale. In 2021 two tigers were found kept in a residential back garden constrained by nothing more than a fence, despite the obvious safety hazards this posed to neighbors and the children. An inbred white tiger. Stephanie Klarmann, Blood Lions As for hunting exotic species, that’s considered a restricted activity under the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act and requires a TOPS permit. But communication with the provincial authority in the North West revealed that the province does not issue hunting permits. For exotic big cat species, a hunt can occur if written permission is provided by the landowner. Hunting clientele coming to South Africa for a big game trophy hunt can bag an exotic big cat bred and raised in captivity with nothing more than the landowner’s consent. Even on the national level, the registration and subsequent permitting for exotic species does not provide regulations for the welfare, well-being, and husbandry needs of the animals, according to Karen Trendler, an animal welfare expert from Working Wild and an NSPCA board member. Overall the regulations are completely inadequate, especially for exotic species being kept, bred, traded and hunted in South Africa. False Justifications for the Captive Industry One commonly touted justification for keeping exotic big cats in captivity is that they provide educational and conservation value. Despite these claims, breeding and keeping wild cat species for commercial purposes does nothing to aid their conservation in wild habitats. In fact, many exotic species kept in captivity in South Africa are endangered in their home ranges. Realistically, how can tigers kept in captivity in South Africa contribute to conservation in India or other countries? Due to inbreeding and hybridization (or the breeding of two different species), captive tigers could never be used for wild conservation projects. Given that tigers occupy less than 6% of their historical range, it’s more urgent than ever that genuine conservation be prioritized. As for education, Trendler asserts that “there are better ways of educating than keeping animals in sub-standard welfare conditions.” Although the conditions in public-facing facilities are better than those away from the public eye, Trendler warns that the public are often unaware of an animal’s complex needs and the many ways in which facilities fail to provide for them. All of which makes South Africa’s continued embrace of the trade more perplexing and discouraging. South Africa is a signatory to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, which declares that captive facilities holding tigers need to support conservation of wild Asian big cats. But the minister has stated the opinion that we do not need to comply with that, since South Africa is not a range state for Asian cats such as tigers. Captive jaguar. Stephanie Klarmann, Blood Lions Her choice to ignore the CITES decision indicates the industry’s lack of commitment to genuine conservation and prioritizing commercial interests instead. Captive-industry claims regarding educational and conservation value continue to fail and undermine genuine conservation efforts by misdirecting attention and funds away from those working to protect species and habitats on the ground in their native habitats, according to Dr. Ullas Karanth, conservation zoologist and tiger expert. What Does the Future Hold for These Big Cats? The same attention lions have received now needs to be given to all predator species, both indigenous and exotic, that are being exploited in captivity. According to South African law (Section 56 of NEMBA), the minister may declare “any species” — native or not — as “critically endangered, endangered, or vulnerable.” That means it lies firmly within the minister’s power to grant other big cat species increased protection under South Africa’s legislation. According to Trendler, exotic wildlife needs to be recognized as deserving of a high standard of well-being, regardless of their country of origin and conservation status. White tiger cub kept separated from its mother. Stephanie Klarmann, Blood Lions The Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment is in a position to effect change, for once, in the animals’ favor. The minister has the power to prohibit activities that affect “the holistic circumstances and conditions of an animal, which are conducive to its physical, physiological, and mental health and quality of life, including the ability to cope with its environment.” Any animal in South Africa, regardless of its indigenous or exotic status, needs to receive consideration for its well-being in terms of its management, conservation, and sustainable use. The commercial captive predator industry won’t do this on its own. These breeders, owners and traders have continuously demonstrated that commercial gain trumps all welfare and ethical considerations. To them, big cats exist for nothing more than a trophy, bones, or trivial entertainment. It’s past time for that to change. [1] 2022 CITES Trade Data may be incomplete. [2] The CITES Trade Database is subject to the accuracy of submitted forms. Some exported animals and derivatives were not properly declared, so exact numbers were not recorded. Get more from The Revelator. Subscribe to our newsletter.  Previously in The Revelator: The Last Lions of India The post In South Africa, Tigers and Other Captive Predators Are Still Exploited for Profit. Legislation Offers Pitiful Protection appeared first on The Revelator.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.