These words, from Canadian philosopher and futurist Marshall McLuhan, emphasize both the necessity of a collectivist attitude and the necessity of coordinated action toward climate change. As the world rapidly approaches the disaster barrier that is 1.5 degrees celsius, it is imperative that the United States takes steps to reach critical climate targets such as net-zero global carbon emissions by 2050. 

Though these may seem like lofty goals, they are now considered essential by many climate experts, if we are to avoid major climate catastrophes that will cost millions of lives, destroy ecosystems and environments and affect trillions of dollars in global revenue. 

Given the extent to which oil and natural gas lobbyists are entrenched and hold influence in American politics, implementing large-scale renewable energy may be difficult to accomplish within the next 10 years. Alternatively, other avenues must be considered to reduce our carbon footprint. A course of action that has been seemingly overlooked is legislation to reduce methane emissions by decreasing the number of cows consumed — essentially, legislation to tackle the meat industry. If deemed politically feasible and in the interest of the administration, President Joe Biden currently faces several alternatives and options for reducing emissions from livestock in order to meet emissions targets.  

Agricultural emissions in the United States account for approximately 10% of all GHG emissions. The largest culprit within the agricultural industry is cattle which — through digestive methane production, transportation, packaging and distribution — directly contributes approximately 30% of all agricultural emissions. The most concerning of these emissions is methane (CH4) — which has a global warming potency 86 times higher than that of carbon dioxide (CO2). 

Cattle contributes to methane emissions primarily in 2 ways. The first is through a process known as enteric fermentation, which is a natural digestive process in which food is decomposed and fermented, creating a by-product of methane. The second primary contributor is cow manure, which often releases methane as it decomposes under anaerobic conditions in piles or open-pit lagoons. 

Combatting methane emissions is a nuanced issue, and agricultural organizations and scientists alike have been doing their best to tackle the challenge for the past 30 years. Many have sought to reduce emissions through intentional alterations of a cow’s rumen, the stomach chamber in which microbes ferment feed hence producing methane. Others have focused on selective breeding for cows with less methane-producing microbes, as well as experimenting with different feeds that promote better digestion. Nevertheless, emissions from agriculture have actually increased despite efforts in many developed countries to actively reduce methane production in cows.

There are several critical reasons why, even with an average reduction of methane emissions per cow, global methane emissions from cattle have still increased by 10% within the last 30 years. First is the phenomenon known as “meatification” in regions like Latin America, Africa, and Asia. Demand for meat has skyrocketed as purchasing power has increased within these regions, and, as a result, global meat production has nearly doubled since 1990. 

Second, measures adopted have been inefficient at reducing overall methane and GHG emissions. While they have made some difference in reducing emissions per cow, raising cows is still a massively inefficient process. In order to raise a cow for slaughter, you must raise it for two to three years as well as provide it with an exceptional amount of land, water, and food. Moreover, cows produce about up to 21 tons of manure per year, and ineffective manure management can lead to greater methane emissions. On top of that, many of these measures have been adopted inconsistently throughout the globe, given that wealthier nations are more equipped to fund the research and supplies needed to successfully implement these measures. 

Yet, research still continues in these areas despite the limited effectiveness of the measures being developed. Why? The larger answer lies in the fact that improvements and advancements in these areas allow the animal agriculture industry to expand. 

But these scientific advancements cannot fix an industry that is inherently destructive – not only to the planet, but to the health of citizens as well. If the United States is serious about combating the negative externalities created by animal agriculture — including methane emissions from cattle — a new agricultural landscape must be constructed rather than focusing improvements to the current one.

There are several paths the Biden administration can pursue if it wishes to significantly reduce the cattle industry’s methane emissions. The first alternative is cut from the old cloth, but worth exploring nonetheless. It involves feeding cows a specific type of seaweed. A 2018 study from the University of California, Davis suggests that feeding cows seaweed could reduce methane emissions from beef cattle by as much as 82%. Unfortunately, implementing this on a massive scale is near impossible because there is simply not enough of that type of seaweed to sustain a cow’s diet, and there are several logistical challenges with providing seaweed supplements to cows grazing on an open range. 

A second policy Biden mught consider is focusing on supporting the growth of businesses that produce plant-based protein substitutes. Plant-based meat alternatives have historically been frowned  upon, but their popularity has absolutely exploded in the past few years with the success of companies like Beyond Meat. Two out of five Americans have tried plant-based meat, with that figure stretching to over 50% for those 25 and younger. Moreover, plant-based substitutes are expected to achieve a whopping 85 billion dollars in sales in 2030, an 1,847% increase from 2018. This growth has only accelerated throughout the pandemic, as the unsafe COVID-19 conditions endured by many meat processing workers have increased calls for more meat-free alternatives.

Another promising innovation the Biden administration could support is lab-grown meat. Currently, lab-grown meat is still in its infancy in the United States, with plans to serve cultured meat still several years away. However, in the United Kingdom the process is a little further along. There are currently 15 startups focusing on lab-grown meat and they have plans to expand to mass production in the coming years. CE Delft expects that by 2030, lab-grown beef could be just as inexpensive as agricultural beef. Even better news, if lab-grown factories were funded by renewable energy it would reduce total beef emissions by 93%. Lab-grown beef may be the best potential alternative because not only does it allow us to reduce our methane emissions and assuage ethical concerns about animal farming, but it also allows consumers to keep the taste and nutrients of meat readily available in their diet.  

But one notable hurdle the United States faces with both plant-based proteins and lab-grown beef is the political strength of the U.S. agribusiness industry. According to research from New York University, major meat and dairy producers have spent millions on lobbying efforts and campaigns aimed at discrediting links between climate change and animal agriculture. Over the last two decades, ‘Big Ag’ has spent $750 million on supporting national political candidates who hold similar policy stances, with Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, and Joni Ernst among their top recipients. 

Unsurprisingly, these major conglomerates have been able to get away with highly carbon-intensive methods of agriculture, as well as produce food at a very cheap rate due to large agricultural subsidies. The Barack Obama administration tried to check the advances of Big Ag, promising millions of rural farmers that they would fight back against the most powerful players in the industry, only to stop when the major agricultural conglomerates banded together with their congressional allies. 

Nevertheless, the emergence of climate change as a central political issue will facilitate Biden’s ability to check the power of Big Ag. As more and more American citizens express their concern about climate change, Congress will have to listen to its constituents or risk losing popular support. Additionally, with Democratic control over the House, and the Senate nearly equally split, climate policies will face less hurdles than they did under former President Donald Trump. Biden should take advantage of these circumstances to steadfastly push climate action.

And as such, I believe the Biden administration should consider adopting the following measures to mitigate the effect of the meat industry on climate change.

1. Increase investment in seaweed farming products;
2. Increase subsidies to plant-based protein companies in order to promote industry growth and reduce prices; 
3. Decrease or eliminate subsidies to animal agriculture, which keep the price of beef and other animal products artificially low; 
4. Have the EPA classify methane as a criteria pollutant under the Clean Air Act (CAA);
5. Fund research, infrastructure, and production capacities for lab-grown beef;

The climate crisis grows more grim every day. If substantial action is not taken by the Biden administration to fundamentally reduce American beef consumption and minimize animal agriculture in general, the United States will struggle to reach its emission targets, thereby hampering the global climate fight and bringing the world closer to environmental catastrophe. 

The dam’s primary purpose is to generate electricity for the 70% of Ethiopia’s rural population who lack it. The dam is also meant to enrich the country through the sale of excess electricity. The giant infrastructure undertaking also serves as a rallying point for Ethiopians who see it as a way for their country to move out of poverty. 

On the other hand, Egypt and Sudan, as downstream countries, are worried that the GERD will permanently decrease the amount of water that reaches them. Egypt, which is dependent on the Nile for agriculture, hydropower and 94% of the country’s total water supply, is particularly threatened and has opposed the GERD since its conception in 2011. Ethiopia claims that the dam will help its people without harming Sudan or Egypt, while Egypt says that the GERD will short the country on the resources it needs. 

With both sides making such bold statements about the benefits and consequences  of the dam, it is difficult to determine which statements are true and what environmental impact the GERD will end up having.

This situation with the GERD is reminiscent of the controversy surrounding the Aswan High Dam, another dam on the Nile that was completed in 1970 and is located in Egypt. Similar to Ethiopia’s desire to use the electricity and profits generated by the GERD to advance as a country, the Aswan High Dam was a point of pride amongst the Egyptian people and a key factor in Egypt nationalizing the Suez Canal and taking back control of it and their country from European nations (the revenue from the canal was needed to fund the dam).

Before the construction of the Aswan High Dam, there were numerous concerns that it would end up doing more harm than good to the surrounding environment. Critics worried that the dam would lead to sedimentation in the reservoir, erosion of the coast and the land at the base of the dam, an increase in the spread of diseases and decreased soil fertility in the area.

The Aswan High Dam has been in use for over 50 years now, and according to several experts including Cecilia Tortajada, editor-in-chief of the International Journal of Water Resources Development and senior research fellow at the Institute of Water Policy, and Asit Biswas, member of the World Commission on Water and co-founder of the International Water Resources Association and the World Water Council, the benefits have thus far proven to outweigh its negative effects. The dam’s primary mission is to stabilize the flood-drought cycle of the Nile in Egypt, and from this point of view it has been an unequivocal success. Since the dam was completed, the Nile’s annual flood has not harmed human lives or agricultural land, and enough water has been stored to see Egypt through all subsequent drought years. Another positive side effect of the Aswan High Dam is that the regulation of the Nile’s flow has allowed for year-round irrigation, leading to two or three harvests per year instead of just one. Additionally, the electricity it generated was the main source of power for Egypt until recently, and a key propellant behind the country’s rapid industrialization.

The impact of the Aswan High Dam has not been entirely rosy though; it has led to an increase in the salinity of both the water and the nearby soil used for agriculture, a severe reduction in the silt that has traditionally fertilized the soil, the collapse of some river banks, and infestations of various aquatic weeds. However, the widely accepted consensus is that these side effects can be managed and are far eclipsed by the positives of the dam.

There is no way to be sure what effects the GERD will have, but estimates have been made based on the fallout from the High Aswan Dam and simulations of various scenarios, including failure of the dam and drought and flood seasons. According to Abdelkader Ahmed, a professor of environmental engineering at at Aswan University, the initial filling of the reservoir will flood existing plants in the area (which is heavily occupied by tropical shrubs), killing them off en masse and leading to a large release of carbon dioxide emissions (between one and eight million tons) as they decompose. It will also affect the spawning and migration of several fish species that may become disoriented by the changing temperatures and currents. However, since the GERD is located by Ethiopia’s border, it will likely not cause major changes to the country’s water supply or agricultural land.

Sudan is in a unique in-between position because the GERD stands to benefit the country but also puts it in harm’s way. The GERD will stabilize the flow of the Nile in Sudan and allow for agricultural production year-round (similar to the effect the High Aswan Dam had on Egypt). However, Sudan is also the country most at risk if the dam should fail. Models created by faculty at American University of Sharjah and United Arab Emirates University found that because the GERD is located in an area of Ethiopia prone to earthquakes and surrounded by steep mountains with high rates of erosion and landslides, geological activity is the most likely reason why it would fail. Regardless of the reason, if the GERD collapses, Sudan will face catastrophic damage including the flooding of almost 10,000 mi² of agricultural land and roads and the transformation of Khartoum, the country’s capital, into a lake.

The forecasted impact for Egypt is not as favorable as the other two countries. A study conducted by researchers at Zagazig University in Egypt and the Technical University of Kosice in Slovakia found that the GERD will reduce the level of both groundwater and surface water in Egypt, which would be detrimental to the agricultural output since most crops grown in the country require large amounts of water. However, if farmers switch to growing crops that use less water, the lower groundwater levels combined with less watering of the plants will increase the salinity of the soil to a level that will damage soil productivity, putting Egyptian farmers in a no-win situation. The dam also inhibits the flow of nutrient-rich sediment that has traditionally replenished downstream agricultural land, further handicapping production capabilities. This could become a serious problem if agricultural output decreases as Egypt’s population growth continues to outpace the ability of the country’s resources to to support it.

The decreased groundwater and surface water levels are concerning on their own since Egypt is already facing increasing levels of water scarcity and has one of the lowest per capita shares of water in the world. According to the United Nations, Egypt is under the water poverty threshold, and will face an “absolute water crisis” by 2025. The country is also concerned about whether Ethiopia will permit the necessary amount of water to be released from the GERD’s reservoir during drought years. Though many talks have taken place between Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan over the GERD, no agreements have been made about protocol during droughts. For Egypt, whose water supplies are already being stretched very thin, how Ethiopia chooses to react to the next drought could be an inflection point for the country.

It is clear that though the GERD will bring many benefits for Ethiopia and Sudan, Egypt will not share in the good fortune. Regardless, the dam has already been built and the reservoir is filled partway. At this junction it is crucial for the leaders of all three countries to come together to determine how to maximize the GERD’s utility for Ethiopia and Sudan within the constraints of maintaining Egypt’s access to necessary resources. 

The Scottish Parliament is currently going through the process of drafting legislation regarding a new referendum on Scottish independence. If the referendum proceeds, it will be the second Scottish referendum within the past decade, following one that took place in September 2014 during which 55.3% of Scottish voters opted to stay in the UK.

How does a referendum work?

Nearly seven years ago, Scotland was led by the pro-independence Scottish National Party, which had a majority in the Scottish Parliament. The SNP believed that independence would grant Scotland more peace, prosperity and freedom — especially over its economy and military. 

In order to initiate an independence referendum, the Scottish Parliament needed to gain permission from the British government, and then solidify the referendum into law. This is because the Scotland Act of 1998 disallows the Scottish Parliament from unilaterally passing a bill when its provisions include matters reserved to the British government such as “the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England.”

In October 2012, the Scottish Parliament signed the Edinburgh Agreement with the UK to lay the foundations of the referendum. Then Scotland passed the referendum legislation in the Parliament to settle the details, including the date of the referendum and the wording of the question. 

In 2014, when the referendum occurred, all Scottish residents who were over age 16 were eligible to vote “yes” or “no” to the question: “Should Scotland be an independent country?” However, the result of the referendum eventually prevented Scotland from claiming its independence, with 44.7% of Scots voting to leave the UK and 55.3% voting to stay. This result was thought to have ended the dispute over Scottish sovereignty, with the British prime minister at the time, David Cameron, claiming that the “debate has been settled for a generation.”

Yet, it didn’t take long for calls for Scottish independence to resurface. 

Following the UK’s exit from the European Union in 2020, Scotland once again expressed a strong intention to leave the UK. The distancing between the UK and the EU is a driving force behind the new Scottish referendum. Unlike England, which left the EU to pursue unilateralism, Scotland has always been a proponent of the EU and wants to keep its role in the political union. The results from the 2016 Brexit referendum support this, with 62 percent of Scottish voters electing to remain in the EU. This figure is the highest compared to all other regions in England, Welsh, and Northern Ireland, and drastically contrasts from all other English regions with the exception of London. 

Why is Scotland Calling for a second referendum?

The Scottish government believes that “Scotland will be worse off outside the EU” in aspects including trade, economy, security, and immigration. 

For instance, after Brexit, Scottish businesses will lose full access to the EU’s Single Market, which is also known as an internal market without trade barriers. This allows the EU members to move people, goods, services, and money around freely. If a product is able to be sold in an EU country, it can also be sold among other EU members. Brexit also prevents Scotland from participating in the EU’s Customs Union, which, according to the European Commission, enables “countries to apply a uniform system for handling the import, export and transit of goods and implement a common set of rules.” Without involvement in these, British goods that enter the EU will face extra customs and border paperwork, causing delays and resulting in an extra trading costs estimated at around £7 billion annually. 

Additionally, Scotland will lose EU program funding for agriculture, fishing, and rural development. Since 2014, the EU has provided £5.6 billion to related programs in Scotland. 

Moreover, Scottish people will face more restrictions when working, studying, or travelling to EU countries. Domestically, the number of EU migrants to Scotland may drop by 50%, which will also have a significant impact on sectors that rely on immigrant labor. The Scottish government projects that leaving the EU will lower Scotland’s gross domestic product by approximately 6.1% by 2030. 

The current leading party in the Scottish Parliament is also pushing for Scottish independence. Although its effort to create an independent Scotland failed in 2014, the SNP continues to advocate for the independence of Scotland. Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP party leader and the First Minister of Scotland (leader of the Scottish devolved government), declared that a different and better future for Scotland “is only open to us with independence.” The SNP currently has 61 out of the 129 seats in the Scottish Parliament, and it may hold a new independent referendum if it were to win a greater majority seats during the election this May. Statistics from February 25 show that 52% of survey respondents planned to vote for the SNP and another 52% said they would vote ‘Yes’ for a Scottish independence referendum. 

However, the SNP is facing an internal challenge, as there is an ongoing political dispute between Sturgeon and Deputy Party Leader Alex Salmond, which would eventually affect the party leadership and the outcome of the election. 

What’s the impact of independence?

A 2019 publication from the Scottish Parliament explains that independence ensures “Scotland’s choices will determine Scotland’s future.” Analysis from Foreign Policy and Center for Strategic and International Studies indicates that if Scotland is able to have its independence, it may gain the ability to make independent decisions on its economy, defence, natural resources, national infrastructure and raise its global status. Scotland may elect to strengthen its military by taking part in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). It also might seek to recover from its economic losses by rejoining the EU. 

However, a report from the London School of Economics found that EU membership does not necessarily guarantee a boost to the Scottish economy. The report indicates that Scotland’s trade figure with the UK is four times greater than its trade with the EU, and rejoining the EU will carry the cost of creating a trade border between Scotland and the rest of the UK. Since 61% of Scottish exports go to England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, Scotland’s break from the UK will likely create financial losses.

London is seemingly feeling the pressure. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson recently took a trip to Scotland in order to persuade the Scots to remain in the UK. His willingness to endure press scrutiny for the trip underscores the degree to which an impending referendum is unsettling for Downing Street and bids for UK unity.

How is the UK responding?

The current government of the UK is against a second Scottish referendum, and has started to appeal to the Scottish people using the government’s financial power. 

The government has bypassed the Scottish Parliament to provide direct funding to local communities, infrastructure and projects. Because the previous first minister of Scotland has made a promise that the independence referendum is something that happens “once in a generation,” Johnson said that the SNP should not break this promise and should stop a second referendum from taking place. 

In a letter he wrote to Sturgeon in January 2020, Johnson wrote that, “the UK government will continue to uphold the democratic decision of the Scottish people and the promise that you made them. For that reason, I cannot agree to any request for a transfer of power that would lead to further independence referendums.”

Overall, it’s difficult to determine which of the two sides has the greater chance of deciding the fate of the UK and the people living within it. The issue itself reflects years of conflicts and clashes between Scotland and England — many historical and many present and political.

Just a few hours prior to this much anticipated action, Biden pledged to “repair our alliances and engage with the world once again.” Considering almost every other country in the world has pledged onto the Paris Climate Agreement and remained loyal to that pledge, the United States’ reentry into this international accord is a crucial step toward repairing U.S. diplomatic relations and restoring American leadership amid the climate crisis.

Many global leaders joined Biden’s American supporters in applauding his commitment to the Paris Agreement, hoping it signals not only a shift in climate policy but also thawing diplomatic relations with the United States. Surely, this is a step in the right direction, but rejoining the Paris Climate Agreements, despite its hefty symbolism, is not compensation for U.S.’ abysmal approach toward environmental policies over the past four years. Climate change ‒ the very existence of it ‒ has become embroiled in heated partisan debate, and consequently, the United States’ commitment to the Paris Climate Agreement and to the broader fight against climate change drastically fluctuates with each change in administration. While the United States is embroiled in a partisan debate over climate change, Latin America, one of the regions most affected by climate disaster, is already confronting the consequences of U.S.’ inaction.

Three thousand miles south of the Oval Office, thousands of Guatemalans are struggling to keep their head above water. In late 2020, two massive hurricanes, Eta and Iota, struck Central America within a few miles of each other, devastating large swaths of Nicaragua, Honduras and Guatemala. These cataclysmic storms uprooted an estimated 5.2 million residents, and thousands still remain in shelters while they struggle to piece their lives back together.

Prior to this unprecedentedly volatile storm season, five straight years of drought had plagued Central America, pushing thousands of migrants northward in search of food and work. Coffee-growing economies throughout the region suffered unprecedented crop failures and drought, leading to a declaration of emergency in Honduras in 2019. The limited water supply was often polluted due to exposure to toxic waste, biological agents and oil spills. 

After half a decade of drought and remarkably uneventful storm seasons, hurricanes Eta and Iota pulverized the region. The storms completely ravaged a region that was already uniquely vulnerable to the COVID-19 crisis, exacerbating conditions in nearly every aspect of life from the prospects of economic recovery to their already weak sanitation system. Displaced citizens are even more vulnerable to gender-based violence and the safety consequences of inadequate reproductive healthcare. More than a singularly horrific tropical storm season, the effects of climate change are already manifesting in every facet of life in Latin America.

In the wake of Hurricanes Eta and Iota, the U.S.Agency for International Development (USAID) estimates damages and losses in Nicaragua alone to total $738 million.

Experts compare this devastation to Hurricane Mitch, which struck the same region in 1998 during the Clinton administration. Roughly 7.2 million people were affected by this storm. Former Honduran President Carlos Flores Facussé recognized that his country could not survive without significant international support and anticipated the global repercussions that could follow an unaddressed humanitarian crisis such as Hurricane Mitch.

Facussé warned international leaders, especially former President Bill Clinton, that without foreign aid migrants would go “walking, swimming and running up north.”

Consequently, Clinton allotted roughly $200 million  in today’s dollars toward disaster relief in Honduras. Many countries joined the United States in donating to Honduras to fund reconstruction of infrastructure and restart the economy. Nevertheless, the region never completely restabilized. If residents didn’t flee from their home country due to lack of housing or infrastructure, they later fled from rising crime rates or an economy in shambles, unable to recover from the storm’s destruction.

Echoing the pleas of President Facussé in 1998, current Guatemalan President Alejandro Giammattei made desperate requests for foreign aid.

“Hunger, poverty and destruction do not have years to wait,” he said.

Climate disaster has already begun to wreak havoc on international migration patterns. Two more groups of migrants, called the Caravan of the Damned, are fleeing north from Honduras to America, escaping the wreckage wrought by the hurricanes, which has been compounded by COVID-19 and a weak economy. Thousands of refugees are headed toward the U.S. border, electing to face the unsure policies of asylum, detention and deportation rather than stay in their home country, which remains torn apart by a slew of catastrophes.

The similarities between these two cases are numerous: millions of Central Americans ravaged by natural disaster, regional leaders requesting immense international support and a Democratic president staring down the barrel of a split congress and polarized political climate (Hurricane Mitch struck a few weeks before Clinton’s impeachment proceedings).

U.S. immigration policy and foreign aid to natural disasters in Latin America remain inextricably linked. We knew it in 1998 and we know it now: if the U.S.  hopes to limit immigration from its southern neighbors, it must be willing to lend a hand in their recovery.

However, insights from the failure of aid to stabilize the region following Mitch and the current international political landscape demand a different approach from American leadership.

We now have a term for the influx of Honduran migrants after Hurricane Mitch in 1998 and the renewed caravans currently departing from the region: climate change refugees.

Climate change disaster will continue to magnify global disparities in wealth and security, permitting wealthier countries to contribute more to impending devastation, while less developed countries pay a higher price.

“Central America is not the producer of this climate change situation,” the president of Honduras, Juan Orlando Hernández, reminded international onlookers. “Instead, we are the most affected.”

Biden has prioritized immigration and climate change ‒ rightfully so. But he must make sure to avoid the mistakes of his predecessors, not just Donald Trump, whose relationship with Latin America could be described as apathetic at best. American presidents have long ignored systemic issues plaguing Latin America, rushing  to slap a Band-Aids on a bullet-hole-riddled states when staring down the barrel of an influx of immigrants.

Biden has made many promises regarding both climate change and immigration, and on his first day issued two executive orders regarding the former and five regarding the latter.

The Paris Climate Agreement is about accountability and solidarity and commitment, fostering cooperation between countries around the world to prevent impending tragedy, but climate catastrophe is already wreaking havoc in some regions of the world.

Experts in Latin and South America fear their issues, with the exception of the U.S.-Mexican border, will remain on the backburner of America’s diplomatic agenda. Without a doubt, Biden’s approach to climate change and immigration are far superior to that of his predecessor, but we cannot let Trump’s climate change denial and blatant xenophobia be the yardstick to measure Biden’s policies moving forward.

Ongoing crises in Nicaragua, Guatemala and Honduras demand that President Biden not only sign on to the Paris Climate Agreement and implement stricter regulations within his own borders, but also address the issues that have already landed on the shores of unstable regions.

Climate disasters such as this require a holistic response as well as preventative action. The thousands of refugees will require aid funding to return to their homes, and then they may need assistance restabilizing their economies and long-term investment into infrastructure built to withstand exacerbated storm conditions. Those that have no choice to emigrate from their home country will require extended Temporary Protection Status (TPS), allowing them to take the first step toward a green card and hopefully, eventually, citizenship.

In an increasingly interconnected global environment with rising sea levels and intensifying natural disasters, climate change and migration go hand in hand. The United States makes disproportionate contributions to the climate change predicament and accepts considerably fewer migrants and refugees. Biden is making strides to correct these grave errors, but we cannot afford to continue to treat climate change and immigration as two separate issues.

After more than a year of negotiations, the United States Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA) went into effect on July 1, 2020. Earlier last summer, while President Donald Trump moved quickly to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with the USMCA, his opponents were eager to criticize this as a shift towards protectionism. In practice, both NAFTA and its successor, the USMCA, are hard to reconcile with the United States’ traditionally conservative and liberal alignments. 

Those with more left-leaning views denounced the end of NAFTA, as it signaled a shift away from free trade policies. Support in favor of free trade is tied to a desire to remove barriers to movement amongst member states, whether it be for goods or people. It is precisely this free movement, however, that is detrimental to smallholder (subsistence) farms in Mexico. 

On the other hand, the right moved to replace NAFTA, claiming that the adverse effects outweighed any benefits of free trade. These same individuals have been simultaneously lobbying for tighter immigration control from Mexico to the United States, yet it is these very policies which have continued under the USMCA which have pushed people to immigrate in the first place. A large portion of these immigrants are smallholder farmers left with no option but to abandon their plots in search of new employment .

With the USMCA already depleting the livelihood of smallholder farms, there is a desperate need for action to help these farmers. We argue that recent advances in satellite imagery could protect the livelihoods of these farmers under the USMCA.

The Flip Side of Subsidies

Both NAFTA and the USMCA attempt to promote free trade through a restriction on tariffs. However, this agreement does not place a limit on subsidies that national governments can provide within their own borders. 

Subsidies under both agreements were intended to support domestic agriculture. However, with the continued limitation on tariffs, Mexican farmers have been left vulnerable to the increased productivity of subsidized American commercial farming. Whereas a Mexican farmer would have to sell their product at a high price to profit, the same product can now be imported and sold at a lower price from subsidized American farms. To the Mexican consumer, an item of produce is the same whether it is from the United States or Mexico, so they naturally will choose the cheaper option, resulting in lost income for Mexican farmers. Therefore, though the USMCA has attempted to remedy the faults of NAFTA in certain aspects, the component of NAFTA that was most detrimental to Mexican farmers in particular has remained a problem under the new USMCA. 

Government subsidies are not the only factor causing the price disparity between American and Mexican produce. The differing agricultural systems and resulting resource inequalities between commercial farms in the United States and smallholder farms in Mexico only serve to exacerbate this problem. Understanding the differences between two systems with the same end product is essential to comprehending our call to help smallholders. 

Different Farms, Different Consequences 

Commercial farms often span hundreds of acres and grow a single crop for industrial use at a wide profit margin. And while a commercial farmer may never eat their own crops, a smallholder farmer depends on their harvests for their livelihood. Smallholders typically grow a small amount of a wide variety of crops, only selling excess harvests after their family’s needs are met. 

Although the size and function of smallholder farms are vastly different from commercial farms, the most salient distinction is in access to resources. The most sophisticated commercial farms are multi-million dollar technological supersystems, often equipped with drones collecting data on crop performance and using artificial intelligence to precisely deploy irrigation and fertilizer in real time. In contrast, smallholder farms are rain-fed systems relying on climatic whims for the success of their crops. Aside from technological resources, commercial farms often have legal and fiscal resources to insure their crops and lobby for policies that will secure demand for their product. These resource inequities leave smallholder farms less equipped to compete with commercial farms and contend with rapidly changing climatic conditions. 

When smallholder farms are placed in global political systems, the negative consequences of political agreements are compounded by pre-existing inequities. Unfortunately, with the agreement’s negotiations, these negative consequences were often ignored or unforeseen from the start. NAFTA was embraced as a method of economic integration meant to elevate wages in Mexico to the levels that were seen in the United States and Canada. 

However, the removal of protective tariffs resulted in previously unseen competition between domestic farmers in Mexico and commercial farming both in Mexico and in the United States. Smallholder farmers have since struggled to compete, and the unemployment rate among family farms in Mexico increased sharply. Since 1991, the number of people employed in family farming in Mexico has decreased by more than 58%. This massive job loss that may continue under the USMCA could be prevented with satellites. 

Why Satellite Imagery?

Satellite imagery, commonly referred to as remote sensing, presents a way to ensure the livelihoods of smallholder farms under the USMCA. While satellites provide countless benefits to farmers, the three benefits that will make them resilient to the negative consequences of the USMCA are the following: (1) the global coverage of satellite imagery, (2) the detection of crop properties and (3) the ability to secure farming insurance.

1. Global Coverage

Satellites scan every corner of the globe, providing researchers with limitless information about agricultural production. Prior to satellites, researchers would have to visit remote study sites to collect data by hand on agricultural-ecological metrics. This often involved a length and costly process of collecting ecological samples to be analyzed in a lab. Accessing these remote locations is often difficult given the lack of infrastructure to reach rural areas. With satellite imagery, data collection is no longer dependent on the quality, or more often paucity, of transportation infrastructure. 

2. Crop Property Detection

With this abundance of data, researchers are able to use satellite imagery to detect properties of plants invisible to the naked eye. Biophysical differences between crops like nutrient deficiencies, water stress, or chlorophyll content, can only be detected in the infrared spectrum. Unlike humans, satellites collect imagery in the infrared spectrum to “see” these differences. Using this data, researchers are able to map agricultural metrics that allow farmers to assess the “invisible” crop stresses of their farm. With this data, farmers can detect the specific parts of their farms that need expensive inputs like fertilizer or pesticides. By more efficiently allotting these inputs, smallholders save money enabling them to price their goods competitively and compete with subsidized farms.

3. Satellite Imagery for Agricultural Insurance

Another barrier for smallholder farmers in Mexico is the inaccessibility of agricultural insurance. Agricultural insurers typically rely on many years of meteorological and agricultural data to decide who to insure. Smallholder farms typically lack this data rendering them ineligible for insurance. With satellite imagery, farmers can provide remotely sensed meteorological or agricultural data to insurers. 

Since the USMCA’s recent ratification, the damage that has resulted has already started to resemble that of NAFTA. The very same subsidies that were detrimental to smallholder farms have continued under this new agreement. However, advances in satellite imagery have the potential to play a key role in saving smallholders farmers’ income by informing efficient resource allocation and securing agricultural insurance. Unfortunately, this data is a valuable resource currently accessible only to commercial farms. 

Despite this current imbalance, in the near future smallholder farmers will be able to access the benefits of satellite imagery as easily as the American consumer can purchase Mexican produce.

This article was written by Glimpse from the Globe’s guest contributing authors.

The earth’s rapidly warming temperatures are not only affecting the life of the coffee plant, but the lives of farmers in coffee exporting countries — the three major exporters being Brazil, Colombia, and Vietnam. These three countries have built entire economies and cultures around coffee. As many as 25 million smallholder farmers worldwide depend on coffee as their staple crop. Unfortunately, monocropping is disastrous in the face of climate change, and many farmers have incorporated bananas or vanilla into their crops in order to protect their livelihoods. Some farmers have left the industry altogether, in search of more reliable work, such as construction.

In Colombia’s Zona Cafeteria, one of the world’s most abundant coffee production regions, coffee cultivation is considered an art. Yet, climate change has wreaked havoc on their Arabica coffee plant. The warmer environment produced by climate change has allowed pests like the Coffee Berry Borer (CBB) to thrive. The CBB beetle has already destroyed approximately 75% of Colombia’s crops, resulting in $550 million worth of damage per year. To dodge the infestation of CBB, farmers have been clearing natural borders and moving to higher elevations, furthering deforestation. Another approach is increasing the use of pesticides, but this may endanger the health of farmers, negatively impact the environment, and lead to greater pesticide resistance.

Prior to the onslaught of climate change, Colombia’s coffee culture was thriving. Coffee production and consumption was booming in the 1920s, and as a result, Colombia enjoyed higher prices of coffee and integration into the international economy. 

Yet, because the coffee market is subject to many booms and busts, international economic cooperation was needed to keep coffee prices stable. To protect major coffee exporting countries like Colombia, the United States proposed the International Coffee Agreement in 1962 to set a price minimum on coffee. As the world’s largest coffee consumer, the U.S. understood that sustaining coffee production relied on stabilizing its supply and demand by providing a price floor to incentivize farmers to keep producing. 

Unfortunately, the volatile coffee market soon fell victim to the effects of climate change as Brazil suffered extreme frosts in the 1970s, causing producers to abandon the ICA. Brazilian farmers could no longer meet their supply quota, resulting in incrementally higher prices. In turn, coffee farmers around the world capitalized on the higher prices by revving up production. In hindsight, this was a poor decision. They overproduced crops, and the market eventually stabilized, leading to lower prices and wasted coffee beans. 

Southeast Asian coffee producing countries have experienced similar repercussions when faced with climate change. The rapidly warming climate has driven away Timor-Leste’s mists and rain, which are vital to growing coffee at higher altitudes. With inconsistent rainfall, the coffee fruit cannot grow properly and may flower at the wrong time. These coffee farmers only harvest once per year, indicating that the irregular rainfall is extremely detrimental. Timor-Leste’s economy depends on coffee, making up 80% of its agricultural exports. Although farmers there work tirelessly to cultivate their beloved coffee plant, they only receive $0.35 USD per 1 kg of coffee, discouraging them from sticking with coffee production. 

Similarly, Vietnam struggles to find solutions as rising temperatures slowly ruin the lush, central highlands ideal for the coffee plant. The Robusta plant grows well on these elevated farms, however, scientists predict the altitudinal range will shift drastically by 2050— from today’s 300-900 meters to 600-1,000 meters. Like Colombia, Vietnam’s warming climate allows the Coffee Berry Borer pest to thrive. Vietnam’s equatorial location has allowed about 600,000 smallholder farmers to build their livelihoods around coffee, but climate change has already caused around 100,000 coffee farmers to transition to other crops or industries.

One potential solution for Vietnam’s central highland coffee farmers is halving their water irrigation use. Oftentimes, these farmers use more than double the water necessary, further depleting their resources. The latest research shows that water consumption for irrigation can be cut down to 400 liters per tree from the typical 1,000 liters, while still producing an equivalent yield. 

Farmers may also need to abandon monocropping and integrate a variety of high-value crops, such as Black Pepper, fruit trees, and vanilla. Although other crops may not be as lucrative as coffee, intercropping is more environmentally and economically sustainable in the long run, as it increases crop resistance to climatic conditions and requires less pesticide and fertilizer use. Additionally, intercropping allows farmers to diversify their income, making them less vulnerable to market volatility.

In addition to intercropping, farmers may need to adopt more scientifically advanced methods of protecting their crops from the effects of climate change. NGOs such as the Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux International have partnered with scientists from Cafexport, a company focused on sustainable coffee production, to establish an early warning system to escape the blight caused by CBB. By implementing a system that measures temperature, humidity, and berry maturity, farmers can anticipate CBB infestations and apply biopesticides to save crop losses. Yet, many questions remain on how to educate and equip farmers with the knowledge and technology needed to protect their livelihoods from climate change. But technological innovation can only take us so far in a world threatened by environmental degradation and climate change. Ultimately, the fate of the coffee industry, and the fate of the planet as a whole, lies in the hands of governments, corporations, and global citizens. Unless the international community can effectively combat climate change, the future of coffee looks bleak.