I came across a recent scientific publication, and the results were sobering, troubling, and indicated a real problem, one which many of us were aware of a long ago.  Climate change is real, and we are seeing the impacts everywhere we look, from melting glaciers and problems with penguins (check out an earlier post), rising sea level and beach erosion, phenological changes, increased incidence in intense storm events and subsequent flooding, droughts, and an increase in the intensity, frequency and extent of wildfires.  And while all of us will see, feel the impact of climate change sooner rather than later, some are going to be impacted in much more significant ways when compared to others.  This is where the idea of environmental justice comes in.  According to the US EPA, environmental justice is "... the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies."  This idea, policy, would be great, if all environmental disasters equally impacted all people.  But unfortunately, this is not the case.  While we hope that laws, regulations, and policies do not "see" race, color, or income as a factor, we know that there are many cases where this is not true.  And apparently, this applies to the impacts of wildfires in the western U.S.A.

The number of acres burned in the US by wildfires has more than doubled in the last 30 years, and climate scientists claim that approximately 1/2 of this increase can be attributed to extreme warmth during the summer, along with an increase in drought, caused by climate change.  The nature of forest fires in particular,  burn patterns, frequency and intensity, is complicated.  And while the continued increase in frequency and intensity of forest fires predicted as a result of climate change in the future will depend on many factors, especially local ecosystem properties, there is no question among scientists that there will be more large and intense fires in the future due to climate change.  And unfortunately, the impacts of these fires will not be felt equally among those people living in fire-prone areas.  The impacts of environmental disasters, like wildfires, are not felt equally among all socioeconomic groups.  While disasters themselves appear to have a random element (often in terms of when and where a disaster strikes), the impacts are not random.  Low-income communities are more at risk, and much less able to respond, to disasters such as wildfires.  In this recent publication, by Davies et al. (2019) published in PLoS ONE, the authors present an impelling case, supported by lots of data, that the impacts of wildfires are not felt equally among all socioeconomic groups.  They reported that 12 million of the over 29 million Americans who live in areas with significant potential for intense wildfires are socially vulnerable.  For these 12 million people, a wildfire event could be catastrophic.  This is sad, and totally unacceptable.  We will all be impacted by climate change, but let us be sure, let environmental justice be served, such that all of us are impacted the same, regardless of race, color, country of origin, or income.  And then, maybe, when the wealthy are exposed to the same risks as the rest of us, there will be action.

A recent report by the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) has reported that "... 96% of 417 national parks [includes all different units of the NPS, such as parks, monuments, seashores, etc.] assessed are plagued by significant air pollution problems in a least one of four categories."  The different categories considered in the study include:

1. Unhealthy air - air which is unhealthy to breathe.
2. Harm to nature - air pollution which damages sensitive species and habitats.
3. Hazy skies - pollution which impacts the view, the aesthetics of a park.
4. Climate change - parks where climate change, and subsequent impacts (i.e., fires, floods, intense storm events), pose serious threats. 

"Air pollution is harming public health, obscuring views and degrading our nation's most precious park sites, from Glacier National Park in Montana to the Natchez Trace Parkway in Tennessee to Cuyahoga Valley National Park in Ohio." (NPCA, 2019).

The Clean Air Act (passed in 1970, amended in 1990) made possible decades of improvements in air quality in the USA.  Yet, in just two years or so, the Trump administration's policies have reversed this positive trend.  Air quality is getting worse, including in our national parks.  Four of the most polluted parks are in California, including Joshua Tree (which I recently visited), Mojave, Sequioa (which I have also visited), and Kings Canyon National Parks.  Pollution levels in these parks are often comparable to large urban areas such as Los Angeles, at least based on the data and information presented in the study by NPCA (2019).

And another study, by Keiser et al., published in 2018 in Science Advances, found that the "... average annual ozone concentrations in national parks are statistically indistinguishable from those in metropolitan areas."  This study included data for 33 national parks and 20 of the nation's largest metropolitan areas for the years between 1990 and 204.  They also reported that exceedance days at some parks are higher than for nearby metropolitan areas.  For example, the exceedance days at Sequoia National Park were actually higher than for Los Angeles in all but two years since 1996.  Exceedance days, as defined by the US EPA, are the number of days per year where the maximum daily 8-hour level of some pollutant exceeds some predetermined level, a level determined by what is considered to "unhealthy for sensitive groups."  For low-level ozone (which is different from the ozone level in the stratosphere, high in the atmosphere), the primary pollutant considered in this study, has a threshold level of 70 parts per billion (ppb).  The authors also reported that there is a statistically significant, and negative, relationship between ozone pollution (monthly mean daily 8-hour maximum ozone concentration), and visitations at parks included in the study.  In other words, between the years 1990 to 2014, when ozone levels were high, fewer people visited the parks.  This study only included data up to and including 2014.  What might things look like now, in 2019, after two years of Trump and the significant roll-backs of environmental regulations, lack of regulatory compliance, and significant increases in drilling, fracking, and mining taking place all over the country, including in areas adjacent to our national parks.  This is bad, for us, when visiting these parks, and for the species and habitats found in these amazing places, our national parks. 

While we know that nature is good for us, that we need biodiverse habitats in order to support the diverse array of ecosystems services upon which we rely, we continue to allow for significant declines in species diversity around the globe.  A new Report by the UN, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), finds that global biodiversity  is declining at an alarming and accelerating rate.  The Summary of the Report suggests that 1 million species are threatened with extinction.  The full Report, the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, is expected out later this year (and expected to exceed 1500 pages, including data).  The Summer Report paints a bleak picture.

• The average abundance of native species in land-based habitats has fallen by at least 20%,
• Over 40% of amphibian species, almost 33% of reef-forming corals, and 1/3 of marine mammals are threatened with extinction,
• A tentative estimate suggest that 10% of insects are threatened,
• More than 9% of domestic mammals used for food/agriculture could soon be extinct, with at least 1000 more breeds threatened.

The primary drivers behind these trends are not a surprise, at least not to me, as I preached the threats posed by these drivers for years in my conservation biology classes.  The primary drivers of species decline include, 1) changes in land and sea use, 2) overexploitation, 3) climate change, 4) pollution, and 5) invasive exotic species.  While there is time, the clock is ticking, and each and every day, more species become threatened, and many become extinction.  And extinction is forever, once a species is gone, that is it.

     "... when the last individual of a race of living things breathes no more, another heaven and another earth must pass before such a one can be again." (William Beebe)

There actually is an entire literature out there considering the relationship between nature, and outdoor experiences, and the physical and mental health of people.  And the research makes it clear, being in nature, as often as possible, is good for you, very good for you.  Also, other studies have pointed out something related, how a sense of awe, often only experienced in nature, also relates to physical and mental well-being.  Being in 'awe' is good for you, very good for you.  I have frequently told others that physical exercise is the closest thing to a health panacea that we have.  Now, add 'awe'.  Experiencing awe, that complex emotion and that experience, of wonderment, of surprise, of impressiveness, of, just wow, especially in the natural world is good for one's mental and physical health.  So, get out there, experience the wonder and 'awe' that is nature, the physical (including geological and hydrological), chemical and biological world which surrounds us, and feel good, very good.  Some 'awe inspiring' photos follow.