Black Carbon Particles and Microplastic Fibers Pollute Glaciers

By Helen Gloege ’23

Staff Writer

Across remote regions of the world, microplastic fibers and polymer fragments have been found in ocean sediments, beaches around the Antarctic islands, in Arctic ice and in the tissues of living things. Microplastics have been found on Mount Everest, considered one of the most remote and pristine places in the world. Along with the discovery of microplastics, black carbon levels have been spiking, covering glaciers and snow-capped mountains in the Himalayas with fine black particles.

Microplastics generally refer to pieces of plastic smaller than 5 millimeters that derive from plastic products and plastic waste. Microplastics found in the snow of Mount Everest in 2019 have set an altitude record for identification at 8,440 meters, nearly the height of the summit, which stands at 8,848 meters.

In One Earth, an environmental research journal, researchers reported that they had identified 12 fibrous plastic particles in each liter of snow from the highest measurement taken at the balcony area of Everest. Particles were also found in stream water at higher altitudes and at the Everest Base Camp where 79 plastic particles were identified per liter of snow. The samples were taken by a National Geographic research team as an investigation into the impact of climate change on the world’s highest peak. The collected samples were then studied by Imogen Napper, a National Geographic expedition scientist based at University of Plymouth in the United Kingdom, which was the first time microplastics from a mountain had ever been studied. Napper was surprised to find microplastics in every single snow sample analyzed.

It is theorized that the microplastics made it to Mount Everest through a climber’s gear or were blown by the wind. These microplastics were found to be mainly made of polyester followed by acrylic, nylon and polypropylene. These materials are commonly found in outdoor gear made from synthetic fibers that tend to shed trace amounts of fibers while they are worn.

Visitors to Sagarmatha National Park in Nepal and the slopes of Mount Everest have steadily increased over the decades, increasing the potential for forms of plastic waste. In 1979, the region hosted around 3,600 trekkers and climbers. In 2016, that number rose to 45,000, and by 2019, the amount of climbers had increased to the point that queues formed to take turns to reach the summit. 

There has also been a significant increase in the plastic products manufactured since climbers began taking to the slopes. About 70 years ago, companies manufactured plastic products at a rate of 5 million tons a year, and it is estimated that in 2020, the world has already purchased 330 million tons, most of which in the form of single-use plastic. It is also estimated that between 93,000 and 236,000 tons of plastic are floating on ocean surfaces. With this massive amount of plastic waste, it almost seems inevitable for microplastics to make their way to even the most remote spaces of the world. 

The presence of microplastics on Mount Everest doesn’t pose an immediate environmental threat. The biggest concern facing Mount Everest and other Himalayan glaciers is an accelerating rate of ice loss. Surface ice at base camp in Nepal is 150 feet lower today than it was 35 years ago. Losing these glaciers will significantly impact local communities. Millions downstream depend on the glaciers for freshwater, and they play a role in agriculture and the vital mountain tourism industry. 

As part of a Mount Everest expedition in 2019 by National Geographic in collaboration with other researchers, surveys were taken at the base camp and surrounding area of the Khumbu Glacier. The team used LIDAR, a type of laser scanning and photogrammetry to create a 3D model of the area. Based on digital reconstructions of the surface of the Khumbu Glacier and 78 other glaciers nearby Everest dating back to 1962, the collected data showed that the glaciers have been consistently melting since 1962 and are dwindling at rates over 50 percent faster than six decades ago. Scientists have also found ice melting at altitudes over 20,000 feet, levels where it was assumed ice should remain frozen solid throughout the year. This has been explained as the glaciers thinning due to decreased snowfall caused by rising temperatures. In addition to the Himalayas, glaciers are found to be melting in the Andes, the Rocky Mountains, the Canadian Rockies and the Alps, among others.

Another concern for glacial melting is the increased prominence of black carbon, more commonly known as soot. The process of burning fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, other organic compounds and black carbon particles.  Most of the black carbon in the U.S. comes from diesel engines, biomass burning, wildfires, residential heating and industrial processes. Diesel vehicles and open biomass burning contribute significant emissions. In other countries, black carbon emissions tend to come from brick kilns, ovens, cookstoves and diesel vehicles. The pollutant is potentially dangerous to human health because of its small size. Black carbon is linked with decreased visibility over a distance, harming ecosystems and causing a reduction in agricultural productivity. It also negatively impacts people’s overall health. 

Black carbon remains in the atmosphere for days to weeks before descending as rain or snow. When it falls as precipitation, the black carbon darkens the surface of the snow and ice. This reduces the albedo, the reflecting power of a surface, and warms the snow, therefore hastening to melt. Black carbon has fine particles that absorb light and about a million times more energy than carbon dioxide.

It is estimated that black carbon is the second-largest contributor to climate change after carbon dioxide. Black carbon interacts with other components of particulate matter, so it is hard to know exactly how much black carbon directly contributes to global warming.

A report that came out this year from a study done in 2016 by scientists at the Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology measured variations in black carbon in Chirbasa, near the Gangotri Glacier in the Indian Himalayas. The study found that the monthly mean concentration of black carbon was at a maximum in May and a minimum in August. The concentrations varied between 0.01 ug/cubic meter in the winter to 4.62 ug/cubic meter during the summer, showing an increase of 400 times during the summer. The zone of measurement was far from sources of pollution, so the measurements are critical for establishing a baseline for pollution loads and estimating the contribution of various sources to pollution. The study was conducted in India which is the second largest emitter of black carbon in the world. 

Another study led by the University of Alaska Southeast’s Assistant Professor of Geology and Alaska Coastal Rainforest Center collaborator Sonia Nagorski, along with others, studied the Juneau Icefield, the fifth-largest icefield in North America. It is estimated that two-thirds of the area will be lost by the end of the century, and by 2200, the icefield will be gone entirely. Natural mineral dust is exposed by the retreating glaciers and collects on the surface. The glacier snow begins to melt faster as light-absorbing particles collect throughout the summer melt season. This creates a cycle in which the particles on the snow’s surface speed up melting, causing the particles to become more concentrated and the snow to become less effective at reflecting light. The study found 40 times more light-absorbing particles in July compared to May at some sites. In the case of the Juneau Icefield, it is likely that the wind blows black carbon from forest fires to the glaciers.

There is a lack of research and information about black carbon and microplastics that prohibits a full understanding of the environmental impacts of the pollutant. Until a time of greater comprehension, other negative impacts on areas like agriculture and health will continue to be discovered.

Chaokoh Coconut Milk Faces Allegations of Unethical Use of Monkey Labor

Photo courtesy of Pexels.

By Catelyn Fitzgerald ’23

Staff Writer

In recent months, multiple grocery chains, including Costco and Wegmans, have stopped selling Thailand-based Chaokoh brand coconut milk following a PETA investigation that found the use of monkey labor in several farms that supply the company. The use of monkey labor is not limited to one company but may be a widespread issue across Thailand’s coconut industry. Issues of transparency and accuracy of information lie at the heart of the controversy, as reports of the treatment of monkeys and the companies that rely on their labor vary widely.

As the world’s second-largest coconut exporter — Thailand exported around 70,000 tons of coconuts in 2018 — animal abuse allegations have significant implications for the future of the coconut industry. According to NPR, training pig-tailed macaques to pick coconuts is a practice that has existed in Thailand for around 400 years. The fruit is the main part of the macaques’ diet, and they are able to climb tall coconut trees with ease and drop coconuts to the ground where a farmer can collect them. For humans, coconut harvesting can be dangerous, as farmers must poke a pole with a sharp blade on the end up into the air to cut coconuts down. Multiple coconuts fall from the tree at one time and can hurt or even kill the farmer standing below.

Claims regarding the scale of monkey labor vary, making the issue difficult to navigate. On one account, conservationist Edwin Wiek stated in a Public Radio International article that the use of monkey labor has declined and now makes up the smallest fraction of coconut industry production. The article also states that monkey labor is an outdated method and, as such, is mostly used on small, independent farms rather than in large operations. Yet in another account, Arjen Schroevers, who runs a school that trains monkeys to pick coconuts using nonviolent methods, told NPR that “it would be difficult to find a coconut product made in Thailand that wasn’t picked by a monkey.” There is no exact data on the prevalence of the use of monkey labor on coconut farms. 

The additional debate over the treatment of coconut-picking monkeys makes monkey labor a murky issue. A PETA investigation into eight coconut farms found monkeys “fitted with rigid metal collars and kept chained or tethered for extended periods” and that the social animals are kept in isolation. The fangs that macaques have for self-defense are also allegedly removed in some cases to protect the monkey’s owner. In a contrasting claim, Leslie Sponsel, an anthropology professor at the University of Hawaii who studies monkey-human relationships in Thailand, told NPR that he had never observed any mistreatment of monkeys, and instead likened them to the family pets of farmers. The training of animals to perform jobs, such as service animals and drug-sniffing dogs, is practiced throughout the globe, and in many cases, without controversy. PETA’s findings suggest that monkey abuse does occur in Thailand’s coconut industry, but it remains unclear whether the mistreatment of monkeys lies under the responsibility of a handful of farmers or if monkey labor itself is indicative of maltreatment.

In other coconut-producing countries, such as Brazil and India, other methods of harvest are used, including platform systems, ladders and the planting of dwarf coconut trees. These strategies make the human harvesting of coconuts more efficient than the use of monkeys. PETA has developed a list of brands that do not source from coconut farms that use monkey labor for those looking to buy coconut products ethically.

Waste Colonialism Produces Global Environmental Concerns

Photo courtesy of Flickr.

By Siona Ahuja ’24 

Staff Writer 

In August 2006, a company hired by the commodity trading giant, Trafigura, offloaded large amounts of toxic waste into Abidjan, the economic center of the Ivory Coast, located on the south coast of West Africa. The vessel, the contents of which were rejected by many countries before being dumped on the Ivory Coast, was carrying 500 tons of fuel, caustic soda and hydrogen sulfide. As a result, 17 people died and thousands of locals in Abidjan contracted severe health problems with reported symptoms of burning skin and difficulty breathing. To this day, people report various skin and eye problems that they believe are related to the 2006 dumping incident. 

This incident is not an isolated one. Developed nations have been dumping their waste into the landfills of developing countries for decades, and have continued to do so even after economically developed countries tightened legislation surrounding waste disposal methods in the 1980s. This exploitative practice has been termed “waste colonialism.”

The primary reason why developed nations export their waste lies in the development process itself. Countries in the Global North produce hazardous substances through industrialization. Environmental justice scholars opine that reckless consumption patterns and the “rapid obsolescence of products” has led to overconsumption and large amounts of waste in the Global North while the landfills of the Global South end up paying the price, according to an article in the journal International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics. 

The import countries, many of them in Africa or the Asia-Pacific region, lack the infrastructure required for proper waste management and recycling. Such mechanisms are scant and concentrated only in urban areas, which means that large rural parts of these countries dispose of imported garbage into landfills or incinerators. Organic pollutants poison areas surrounding landfills, producing fatal hazards for local wildlife and ecosystems. The toxic waste also permeates the soil, which can contaminate groundwater and crops that humans ingest, resulting in detrimental effects like cancers, diabetes, bone disease, kidney damage and liver damage. Incinerating waste releases harmful chemicals such as lead and mercury into the air. Not only does inhaling these fumes cause severe respiratory problems, but these elements are potentially carcinogenic. More than 2 billion tonnes of non-hazardous waste is generated globally, and this number is projected to increase by 19 percent in the Global North and 40 percent in the Global South by 2050. 

To combat this exploitation, the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, known as the Basel Convention, was set up by the United Nations in 1989. The Basel Convention seeks to establish secure standards for the transnational movement of hazardous waste. In 1995, the signatories adopted an amendment called the Basel Ban which prohibits the transfer of hazardous waste materials from developed to developing countries. The United States, one of the worst global offenders of waste production, has not yet ratified the Basel Convention so it is not legally binding.  

Even for member-states who have ratified it, there are significant legal loopholes that pose challenges to its goals. There is ambiguity in defining non-hazardous and hazardous waste along with what constitutes waste and non-waste. This creates a plethora of opportunities for member-states to escape the stringent controls of the Basel Convention. 

Until two years ago, China imported almost half of the world’s plastic waste. This ended in January 2018 when the country ceased all imports of scrap plastics and other wastes  according to its “National Sword” policy, overflowing the warehouses in the U.S., Canada and Australia and leading to an estimated displacement of 111 million metric tons of plastic by 2030. Instead of improving systems and managing their wastes internally, developed nations redirected their exports to Malaysia, Vietnam and Thailand, to name a few. 

Managing imported waste also adds to the pile of domestic concerns developing nations face which include overpopulation, inconsistent economic growth and present pollution problems. This creates a vicious cycle of developed nations treating developing nations as their dumping grounds and then chiding them for mismanaging their garbage. This colonial mindset was exemplified when the American-based environmental nongovernmental organization Ocean Conservancy released a report in 2015 regarding solutions to marine plastic pollution. One of the core suggestions was for Southeast Asian countries to collaborate with foreign-funded companies to build incinerators and burn their plastic waste. This recommendation was vehemently opposed by the Philippines branch of the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, which stated the effects of incinerating waste on the environment and health, especially in countries like China that are combating severe pollution. 

No amount of policy changes and international assistance is likely to make a difference if the Global North refuses to make a radical reduction in the production and usage of materials. “Disposable plastics are simply not possible without colonizer access to land. The end of colonialism will result in the end of plastic disposability,” wrote Dr. Max Liboiron, an assistant professor of geography at Memorial University, in an op-ed for Teen Vogue. 

Op-Ed: How the COVID-19 Crisis Reveals Barriers To Solving Climate Change

Image courtesy of Pexels.

By Catelyn Fitzgerald ’23

Staff Writer

Humans have long entertained a complex relationship with cooperation. In the U.S. specifically, praise for individualism and a mixed trust of institutions mark our relationships with one another and how we view ourselves within a greater society. While we can go through the daily motions without considering the complicated nature of cooperation in America, the COVID-19 pandemic has thrown the issue at our feet, laying open our society in a way that begs us to take a closer look.

Mask-wearing and social distancing have served as an obvious trial of Americans’ ability to act together with a particularly high-stakes incentive for collective action. Because masks protect others more than those wearing them, those who use them are choosing to benefit others at their own expense with the hope that everyone will do the same. A Pew Research Center poll conducted in August found that around 85 percent of adults say they regularly wear masks in stores and other businesses. While this number is admirable, an outspoken minority has been seen protesting mask mandates across the country. Many reasons exist as to why these so-called “anti-maskers” refuse to wear face coverings in public, one of which is a concern that mask mandates infringe on the rights and freedoms guaranteed to individuals by the Constitution. Individual freedom has long been considered a core part of American society going back to John Locke’s declaration of fundamental rights held by all individuals and the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791. American individualism has grown and changed since the birth of our country, and today it is often used as a reason to evade cooperation in favor of personal benefit.

State and local governments are also failing to cooperate effectively in response to COVID-19. According to an article from The Guardian, states with Democratic governors have enacted school shutdowns, business closures and other COVID-19-related restrictions faster than states with Republican governors. The trend of instituting state health policy actions along party lines rather than based on the needs of the community and the recommendations of scientists show that other motives are at play. Along with varying responses among states, mixed signals given by government officials from local leaders to the president have caused confusion about the correct response to the virus and made a cohesive campaign impossible.

Variation in the response to the virus is not completely irrational. Concerns over the economic and human costs of closing businesses are legitimate, but the virus pays no mind to state lines. Now is not the time for states to prioritize their own economic interests, as this does little to abate the virus and ultimately leaves everyone worse off. If there was a consistent and coordinated response from states when the virus first entered the U.S., we might not be in the condition we find ourselves in today: with cases matching the levels last seen in April and the economy struggling.

If every person chooses to wear a mask and every state institutes travel restrictions and closes public spaces, COVID-19 cases will decline and we will eventually return to our normal lives with fewer deaths. But this happy ending can still be achieved without total participation. A few people or counties could “cheat” and refuse to follow safety measures along with the rest of the country while benefiting from the sacrifices of those around them. Everyone has an incentive to cheat, whether it be social or economic, but as we see more and more individuals and states make choices that help themselves at the expense of others, we stray further from a virus-free future. 

The struggles we face with cooperation will not end with the pandemic. It is now more important than ever for us to look deeply at societal cooperation in the U.S. If we choose to learn from our mistakes now, we may be able to act together to protect the environment for the future. Climate change is one of the most collaborative issues humankind has ever faced. Every country, organization and person needs to do their part to avoid the catastrophic fates predicted by scientists.

We have seen in many ways how the refusal to cooperate has stopped potential strides in the fight against climate change. Struggles to pass climate legislation in Congress, corporations cheating on pollution restrictions and a growing league of climate deniers prevent necessary changes from being made to protect the environment in favor of political and economic gain for powerful people and organizations. Not only do these forces allow climate change to gain strength, they sow seeds of distrust in American society. 

As the challenges we face grow bigger and more complex, perhaps it is time to go back to the basics. We must consider our role within society, and the American government must consider its role as a world power. We must ask ourselves what drives our decisions and what we can do to build a better future — not only for ourselves, but for our greater community and those who will take our place in the future.

Environmental Impacts of Physical Barriers on the Border Between the US and Mexico

Pictured above: the Border Wall. Photo courtesy of Flickr.

By Abby Wester ’22 

Staff Writer

The U.S.-Mexico border wall has been a point of contention in American politics since President Donald Trump made a promise to expand it during his 2016 presidential campaign. Along with political concerns about the effectiveness and morality of physical borders, worries about their environmental effects have also arisen.

Physical barriers have existed on the U.S.-Mexico border for decades, dating back to the early 1900s. In recent history, the fencing along the border was expanded under President George W. Bush when he signed the Secure Fence Act of 2006 — a move supported by former President Barack Obama, 2016 presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and Senator Chuck Schumer. 

When Trump won the 2016 election, he came closer to realizing his promise of expanding the wall along the country’s southern border. Though he has been working against political opposition to building the wall, he has remained true to his promise. Soon after his inauguration, Trump signed an executive order to begin building the border wall — and in January 2019, the longest American government shutdown took place because, according to Trump, the federal government’s budget did not put enough money toward building the wall. In Trump’s final weeks in office, he is still pushing to fulfill his promise and continue building the wall along the southern border, making it harder for President-elect Joe Biden to be able to undo the actions of his predecessor.

Since the plan’s emergence, the expansion of the border wall has significantly alarmed scientists and environmentalists, as it has a number of negative environmental impacts. Bush-era fencing has resulted in flooding in parts of Arizona due to the buildup of debris blocking natural water flows during rainfall. The barriers do not allow animals to migrate within their habitats, limiting their ability to find food and water and escape from floods or fires. A Bioscience paper concluded that a full border wall would inhibit one-third of 346 native wildlife species from accessing 50 percent or more of their natural habitats. The border wall also disrupts wildlife refuges, national parks, Indigenous lands and surrounding communities. 

The environmental effects of physical barriers have existed for years on the border between the U.S. and Mexico, but they have been exacerbated by Trump’s expansion plans. While Trump’s time in office may have only lasted four years, the environmental and social impact of the border wall will long outlast his presidency. 

Biden Announces John Kerry as Special Presidential Envoy for Climate

Pictured above: former Secretary of State John Kerry. Photo courtesy of Flickr.

By Helen Gloege ’23

Staff Writer 

President-elect Joe Biden announced on Nov. 23 that former Secretary of State John Kerry will serve as the special presidential envoy for climate, a new position created by Biden’s team. Kerry will serve as a cabinet-level appointee in the administration and will sit on the National Security Council as its first-ever official dedicated to climate change. 

The term “presidential” in his title means that Kerry is likely to report directly to Biden. The term “envoy” means that Kerry is a senior diplomat and is thus responsible for representing the U.S. climate agenda in diplomatic circles, including in meetings with foreign leaders. Biden’s team has also promised to instate a domestic equivalent to Kerry, an appointment that has yet to be announced.

The appointment of Kerry to this office indicates a shift in policy and approach to climate from the last four years under the Trump administration. The position shows that Biden’s approach to climate change is a foreign policy issue because Kerry will sit on the NSC and work with international officials. Kerry will also be sent as a representative of the U.S. on climate-related issues — an unusual feature of this appointment in that most envoys normally require confirmation by the U.S. Senate.

During the Obama administration, Carol Browner, an Environmental Protection Agency administrator, served as a domestic climate policy coordinator. Browner was known for having a vast wealth of knowledge on climate change, but her pushes for action were frequently countered by Larry Summers, Obama’s chief economic advisor. 

Kerry succeeded Hillary Clinton as secretary of state in 2013 and played a significant role in the development of the Paris climate accord. In 2019, Kerry co-founded a bipartisan initiative of world leaders and celebrities to combat the climate crisis dubbed World War Zero. During this past Democratic primary, he was the co-chair of the Biden-Sanders unity task force that was focused on producing recommendations on climate.

After its announcement, Kerry’s appointment received much praise. Michael Mann, the director of the Earth Science Center at Penn State, said he “cannot think of one person better qualified” for the job than Kerry. The Sierra Club’s acting Deputy Director for Policy and Advocacy Dalal Aboulhosn pointed to Kerry’s longtime advocacy on climate and decades of political experience as key positive aspects of the nomination. Former Senator Tim Wirth of Colorado, who was a climate negotiator under secretary of state for global affairs in President Bill Clinton’s administration, noted that Kerry “understands the depth of the climate issue and the need for a huge global economic transition.” Co-founder and Executive Director of the Sunrise Movement Varshini Prakash, who co-chaired Biden’s climate task force, also praised Kerry’s appointment, saying he is “committed to engaging and listening to young voices — even when we might not always agree — ensuring we have a seat at the table.” Sunrise also responded to the position, calling for a domestic counterpart to Kerry, which the Biden team responded to by saying there would be a domestic counterpart announced in the near future.

Despite many encouraging responses, not all reactions have been positive. Wenonah Hauter, the executive director of Food & Water Action, said that “Kerry has been a long-time apologist for fossil fuel fracking, and a reliable promoter of false climate solutions.” The environmental group Food & Water Action has doubted whether Biden’s vision will be fast or effective enough. Arkansas Republican Senator Tom Cotton is also critical of the appointment, saying, “John Kerry [is] thrilled at [the] prospect of returning to his dream job of living in Central European luxury hotels while negotiating deals that are bad for America.”

The position of special presidential envoy for climate could be the beginning of many climate-related positions in the Cabinet and government. For now, the creation of this post shows that tackling the climate crisis is a priority for the new executive branch. Within the upcoming weeks, it is likely we will know Kerry’s promised domestic counterpart and more details about the Biden administration’s plans to confront the climate crisis.

The Ugly Truth About Cosmetics

Image courtesy of Pxhere

By Siona Ahuja ’24

Staff Writer

The cosmetics industry has been scrutinized for turning a blind eye toward unethical practices that are harmful to the environment. The industry produces more than 120 billion units of packaging material annually. Although there has been a surge over the past decade or so of products marketed as “pure,” “organic” or “cruelty-free,” a majority of these are still taking a toll on the environment. Eighty-nine percent of the ingredients used in cosmetics are not regulated by the FDA, the Cosmetic Ingredient Review or any other publicly accountable institution, giving brands a chance to add hazardous chemicals and carcinogens that damage both the human body and the Earth. 

One significant environmental impact of the cosmetics industry is microbeads. Microbeads are little plastic balls less than 5 millimeters in diameter most commonly present in skincare products to give them an exfoliating effect. While these particles are scrubbed off of the skin in one to two minutes, they have rinsed down the drain, where they escape wastewater treatment centers and remain in the environment for tens of thousands of years. These beads have the capacity to upset the entire food chains. They are routinely digested by marine life which, in turn, is consumed by humans, who end up ingesting the microbeads’ harmful toxins. 

While countries like Canada, the United States, South Korea and some European nations are realizing the toxic effects of microbeads, these plastic particles have yet to be universally eradicated. Since some versions of plastic microbeads are too small to see with the naked eye, Beat the Microbead, an app and database, helps buyers check for the presence of this pollutant and make informed decisions about specific products. Skincare specialists and cosmetologists recommend using natural exfoliants instead, such as coffee grounds and jojoba beads. These experts also place a greater emphasis on chemical exfoliants, thus eliminating the need for physically abrasive and environmentally harmful skincare. 

While under the pretense of being eco-friendly, popular brands are still including bizarre animal products in cosmetics. Animal wax is a recurrent product in lip balms, and lipsticks owe their reddish tint to crushed red beetles. Most lipsticks have an ingredient called “pearl essence” — another name for fish scales — that gives them a unique luster. There are many, many more ingredients that have been renamed with elegant terms in order to obscure their origins. 

Fortunately, many brands are acknowledging this crisis, and in response, newer and cleaner companies are being launched. ILIA Beauty and Au Naturale are relatively transparent brands that are powering their way through the makeup market with natural tints and vegan products. The CosmEthics app and PETA’s website give exhaustive directories of animal ingredients and their ethical alternatives. 

A much less acknowledged side of the makeup world is the illegitimate procuring of ingredients for most products. Vanilla, a familiar ingredient used as an aromatic in the cosmetics industry, is the second most expensive spice in the world. Almost 80 percent of this spice sold globally comes from Madagascar where child labor, extensive working hours and underpaid cultivators are commonplace. While the price of vanilla fluctuates between $200 to $400 a kilogram, the field workers are paid only around $8 per kilogram. Similarly, cocoa farmers in tropical West Africa, especially in Ghana and on the Ivory Coast, supply almost 70 percent of the world’s cocoa. Many organizations have exposed the extensive use of child labor, human trafficking and even slavery in these extremely competitive cocoa farms where wages stoop as low as $2 per day. 

Mica, a mineral that adds glitter to everyday makeup, is largely found in India where it is illegally scavenged on protected forestland. This has caused major deforestation and loss of wildlife in large parts of the country. Children as young as 6 years old are involved in mica scavenging, a hazardous activity that increases one’s risk of tuberculosis and early death. Workers’ lives are at risk of being suffocated in mica mines; in fact, a 2016 report by the Thomson Reuters Foundation revealed that seven children had been smothered to death in mica mines in a span of just two months. 

The daily use of cosmetic plastic products generates millions of tons of non-biodegradable waste. Makeup wipes, toothbrushes and disposable razors are the most commonly disposed of items. Diana Felton MD, the state toxicologist with the Hawaii Department of Health, said, “20 million pounds of single-use wipes (including baby wipes and disinfecting wipes) are disposed of every day in the U.S. Many wipes are disposed of in landfills, and despite claims to the contrary, most are not biodegradable and do not rapidly break down, creating too much trash to fit in our landfills.” The plastic fibers from these wipes leech into the oceans and create a hazard to marine life. To make matters worse, these single-use wipes come in equally harmful plastic packaging, which doubles the waste quantities they contribute. Makeup experts suggest eliminating makeup wipes from people’s routines entirely and instead of using organic makeup removers or reusable washcloths. 

Similarly, disposable razors and toothbrushes have bodies made entirely out of plastic that, when thrown away, pile up in landfills for years to come. In 1990, the Environmental Protection Agency estimated that Americans tossed out more than 2 billion razors. Since then, the American population has grown by almost 75 million. According to research by FOREO, a Swedish multinational beauty brand, 1 billion plastic toothbrushes (50 million pounds’ worth of plastic) are thrown away annually. These toothbrushes and razors face the same fate as the makeup wipes. As more awareness is raised about these polluting products, recyclable metal razors and bamboo toothbrushes are making headway in the beauty and health care industries. 

As the world opens its eyes to the hazards of daily beauty practices and items, a few companies are trying to create change. Makeup artists and influencers like PaintedByEsther and Salwa Rahman are inspiring their followers by upcycling containers, encouraging people to buy secondhand products and refusing to promote companies that do not have a waste reduction policy. “The concept of refillable makeup should become the norm, as it … drastically reduces the eco-footprint of an item,” says Lyndsey Bates, U.K. director of the world’s first refillable makeup brand, ZAO Beauty. “Furthermore, packaging can then be made sustainable.”

Controversial Wolf Restoration Proposition Passed by Colorado Voters

Image courtesy of Flickr.

By Catelyn Fitzgerald ’23

Staff Writer

On Nov. 3, Colorado voters passed Proposition 114, an effort to restore the state’s gray wolf population. Hunted nearly to extinction in the 1900s, Proposition 114 aims to reintroduce gray wolves into Western Colorado to restore the population to self-sustaining levels as other states have successfully done in the past.

Reintroducing gray wolves in Colorado will play an important role in connecting existing wolf populations in the Rocky Mountain regions above and below the state. The text of the proposition states that bringing wolves back to Colorado “will help restore a critical balance in nature” by helping to complete ecosystem cycles interrupted when the wolf population dropped. 

Wolf restoration projects have garnered a positive reputation among environmentalists due to their success in Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming. After wolves were reintroduced into the park, the subsequent reduction in elk and deer populations allowed willow and aspen trees along riverbanks to recover from overgrazing. As a result, the park’s rivers became more stable, and other animal populations grew in abundance as the natural environment was restored. 

The powerful effect of wolves on the environment comes from their importance as an apex predator or a species at the top of its food chain. This means that any changes to the population of wolves in an area will ripple through the ecosystem. 

Despite the reintroduction of wolves making immediate changes to the park’s environment, other factors such as drought and hunting also decreased the elk population. This means that wolves were not the sole saviors of Yellowstone National Park and that the positive effects of wolf restoration on the environment may not occur in other projects.

According to Proposition 114, the reintroduction of wolves will be restricted to “designated lands,” referring to the area west of the continental divide that runs down the ridge of Colorado’s Rocky Mountains. This region constitutes the rural area of Colorado, with most of the state’s urban population living east of the Rockies, making support for the proposition lie strongly with the state’s urban voters. Ranchers and big game hunters make up the bulk of opposition to the measure due to their concerns over wolves presenting a danger to livestock and creating competition for hunters.

According to Proposition 114, a plan for wolf reintroduction will be formulated based on the “best scientific data available” and regular state hearings, as well as opportunities for public input. The measure also includes an allocation of funds to “assist owners of livestock in preventing and resolving conflicts between gray wolves and livestock” and “pay fair compensation to owners of livestock for any losses of livestock caused by gray wolves.” Colorado has had a higher number of wolf restoration projects than other states, warranting extra consideration from voters about the potential for unwanted contact with wolves.

The potential of wolf-livestock conflict is a major concern for Colorado ranchers. While wolves have been reported to kill livestock at low rates — Colorado State University estimates that under 1 percent of cattle in the Rocky Mountain states are killed by wolves — these killings are often unevenly distributed, meaning that the livestock of a small group of ranchers could become the target of multiple attacks. 

An additional source of controversy surrounding Proposition 114 is its position as an unprecedented method of determining state wildlife policy. The proposition represents the first time that wildlife restoration issues in Colorado have been put in the hands of voters rather than determined by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission. The commission is appointed by the governor and its members come from a variety of backgrounds, from a hunting outfitter owner to an environmental attorney. 

Some opposition to Proposition 114 comes from the belief that wildlife management decisions should be made by those with experience rather than the general public. In 2016, the CPWC rejected a wolf reintroduction proposal based on Colorado not being part of the historic range of gray wolves, the success of other states’ restoration efforts and potential damage to the agriculture and big game hunting industries. 

Donations to campaigns for and against the proposition show the stark differences between the two sides. The Rocky Mountain Wolf Action Fund led the campaign in support of the measure and raised over $1.7 million to help pass the proposition. Many donations to the fund came from environmental groups such as the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council. On the other hand, Stop the Wolf PAC raised over $70,000 in an effort to prevent the proposition from being passed, most of which came from individuals donating small amounts.

Given the divisiveness of the issue, its passage with 51 percent of the vote comes as no surprise. The measure passed by a narrow margin of about 57,000 votes, according to Ballotpedia. Proposition 114 will go into effect in Colorado by the end of 2023, but its results will be seen over the next several decades.