Yosemite Valley, Yosemite National Park. Photo: Jeffrey St. Clair.

Ecotourism is often hailed as a sustainable alternative to traditional travel—an opportunity to explore unique environments while supporting local communities and conservation efforts. Yet beneath its green image lies a more complex and often troubling reality. When poorly managed, ecotourism can inflict more harm than good, undermining the very ideals it seeks to uphold.

The ecotourism industry has emerged as one of the fastest-expanding sectors within global travel. According to the Global Ecotourism Network, in 2023, eco-travel accounted for an estimated 20 percent of the international tourism market, with projections indicating continued double-digit annual growth. In 2023 alone, the global ecotourism market was valued at over $200 billion. Economic predictions estimate that the market could reach between $759 billion by 2032 and $945 billion by 2034.

Despite this rapid growth and economic promise, ecotourism enterprises have faced significant criticism from conservationists and researchers. In a 2020 Architectural Review article titled “Outrage: The Ecotourism Hoax,” Smith Mordak, chief executive of the UK Green Building Council (UKGBC), asserted that “As long as the underlying principle behind tourism is to bring growth-stimulating inward investment, tourism cannot be made ‘eco.’”

The Ecotourism Paradox

Mordak’s remarks expose the deeper contradictions within many so-called “sustainable” initiatives, drawing attention to the pervasive issues of greenwashing and bluewashing. Just as corporations may falsely brand themselves as environmentally friendly or socially responsible to appeal to conscious consumers, ecotourism companies often mask exploitative or unsustainable practices behind the veneer of conservation. Ultimately, without a fundamental shift in the economic principles that underpin ecotourism, efforts to make the industry sustainable risk becoming performative, focusing on marketing rather than achieving meaningful impact.

According to UKGBC’s Mordak, “Like everything else nurtured in the agar jelly of capitalism, noble intentions soon become corrupted, and the ‘eco’ prefix amounts to little more than a greenwashing rebrand.”

Ecotourism is built on a dual promise—to protect natural environments and to share them with visitors—yet fulfilling one often puts the other at risk. In April 2025, I interviewed Dave Blanton, founder of  Friends of the Serengeti. He started the organization in response to a proposed commercial highway through Serengeti National Park, a development that would have fragmented the ecosystem and destroyed critical migratory routes. He explained the paradox: “On one hand, the growth of tourism in the Serengeti-Mara region will generate government revenue and create jobs. On the other hand, it will increase environmental pressure and diminish the traveler experience.”

Blanton, whose connection to the Serengeti spans over four decades, said, “It is difficult to ensure high standards and best practices in the face of increased demand, competition, and overly ambitious goals for growth.

Grassroots Origins, Global Ideals

Rooted in principles of sustainability and community engagement, grassroots ecotourism, which emerged in the early 1980s, was developed as a response to growing global concerns about environmental degradation and the negative impacts of mass tourism. It emphasizes low-cost, purpose-driven travel experiences that foster direct contributions to conservation and local development.

The current grassroots volunteer travel industry—often referred to as “voluntourism”—continues to attract socially conscious travelers seeking meaningful, hands-on experiences that contribute to local communities and conservation efforts. Programs typically involve small-scale, community-led initiatives that prioritize local needs, such as wildlife monitoring, habitat restoration, education, or sustainable agriculture, and take the form of educational exchanges or participation in field research.

Volunteer travelers opting for low-cost expeditions may pay between $20 and $50 per day, which usually covers necessities such as meals, local transportation, and accommodation. Lodging in these programs is typically modest, ranging from rural homestays and shared guesthouses to dormitory-style lodgings or even tents, depending on the location and nature of the work.

Some who have participated in volunteer travel expeditions have reported a lack of resources and infrastructure, which leaves both volunteers and host communities struggling to meet basic needs. Poorly managed programs are another common complaint, with some volunteers arriving to find disorganized projects, minimal supervision, and unclear objectives. Especially troubling is that some wildlife conservation programs have been accused of neglecting animals by housing them in inadequate enclosures—small, unsanitary, or unsafe spaces that can cause stress, injury, or behavioral problems.

Conservation or Commercial Growth?

Increasingly, however, the voluntourism model is being supplanted by the proliferation of large-scale, high-end commercial ventures, where travelers are observers rather than helpers. The modern ecotourism landscape is increasingly dominated by luxury enterprises, some of which feature elegant eco-lodges, boutique resorts, and nature-based retreats offering the comforts of premium hospitality.

Accommodations are often situated in remote, pristine environments, such as nature reserves, rainforests, or coastal regions. Amenities may include private villas or bungalows, gourmet organic cuisine, private wildlife excursions, and wellness offerings like yoga and spa treatments. Prices for these luxury experiences can range from several hundred to several thousand dollars per night.

With the expansion of major hotel chains and multinational businesses in conservation areas, critics argue that the scale and infrastructure required to sustain such operations can strain fragile ecosystems and disrupt local communities and wildlife.

Matt Kareus, executive director of the International Galápagos Tour Operators Association (IGTOA), focuses his efforts on preserving the unique biodiversity of the Galápagos Islands through education, policy advocacy, and collaborative conservation initiatives. When I spoke to him in April 2025, he stated that the most serious long-term threat to the Galápagos is runaway tourism growth, which has compromised the natural resources and local infrastructure on the Ecuadorian islands. Like Blanton, Kareus emphasized the need for stricter environmental standards and accountability to ensure that ecotourism remains a tool for conservation, rather than a vehicle for unchecked commercial growth.

Kareus says that the issue is not whether luxury ecotourism is necessarily better or worse than other forms of tourism; instead, it’s a matter of how well tourism itself is managed and regulated in individual regions.

“There are a lot of potential benefits when it’s done thoughtfully and responsibly, just as there can be a lot of downsides to more budget-friendly modes of tourism if they aren’t done in the correct way,” said Kareus, who offered an example: “Imagine a 15-room eco-lodge surrounded by a nature reserve—it could potentially generate similar economic and employment benefits as a standard 100-room hotel, with far less negative impact on the surrounding environment.”

Luxury ecotourism developments are increasingly incorporating advanced eco-friendly design, planning, and investment strategies, emphasizing features such as solar energy systems, rainwater harvesting, passive cooling architecture, the use of locally sourced and renewable building materials like bamboo or reclaimed wood, as well as carbon offset programs. Operators assert that strategic site planning minimizes ecological disruption by preserving native vegetation, protecting wildlife corridors, and adhering to low-impact construction methods.

The Commodification of Culture

While mass-market ecotourism promises immersion in natural environments and meaningful cultural exchanges, some critics argue that the result is often a curated version of nature and culture—polished, exclusive, and often removed from the realities of place.

Researchers attribute this conceit to the “white savior complex,” a mindset—often held by well-meaning but misinformed Western travelers—where they perceive themselves as heroic figures “rescuing” impoverished or marginalized communities, particularly in the Global South, through short-term volunteerism or conservation work, but often end up reinforcing colonial-era power imbalances, where Western values, knowledge, and presence are seen as superior or necessary for progress. At the same time, local expertise, autonomy, and cultural practices are undervalued or ignored.

In my interview with her in May 2025, Michelle Mielly, professor of law, management, and social sciences at Grenoble Ecole de Management (GEM), commented, “Indigenous people want to be left alone. We keep colonizing these cultures.”

Commodification not only undermines the integrity of local traditions but also distances travelers from the raw, unfiltered experiences that make travel transformative, turning sacred rituals and cultural practices into spectacles for outsiders. Academic researchers refer to the practice as “cultural extractivism”—the appropriation of Indigenous cultural practices and traditions by commercial enterprise.

Professor Mielly offered an instructive example in the increasing popularity of ayahuasca retreats in the Amazon River Basin. Ayahuasca, a psychedelic brew made from native plants that has been used for centuries by Indigenous tribes for its spiritual and therapeutic properties, is being successfully marketed to Western tourists as a psychedelic substance that promises a mind-altering experience worth traveling for.

According to studies, ayahuasca has demonstrated antidepressant effects, offering hope for many who don’t react to classic interventions. Retreats are often hosted in remote jungle settings in countries like Peru, Brazil, or Colombia, and are led by Indigenous shamans or facilitators trained in local spiritual and healing practices. However, Mielly explains that the significance of the Amazon rainforest extends far beyond its role as a habitat. “[Indigenous communities] derive their culture, language, and social order from the natural structure of the forest,” she says.

Preservation Without Permission

In many cases, protected areas are established or expanded to accommodate ecotourism without the full consent or involvement of the people who have historically lived on and stewarded the land. This has led to the displacement of Indigenous groups, stripping them of access to ancestral territories and traditional livelihoods under the guise of environmental preservation.

“While it’s no surprise that the original concept of ecotourism has been obscured by less virtuous projects, they become more problematic when they block local communities from ancestral lands or even involve their forced relocation,” wrote Mielly in a 2023 article in The Conversation. Mielly cites several examples of forced displacement of Indigenous populations under the crush of ecotourism development—including the eviction of 16 villages on Rempang Island, Indonesia, to make way for a solar panel factory and “eco-city.”

“Eco-projects are not necessarily humanitarian projects,” noted Mielly, invoking how the three pillars of sustainability—environmental, social, and economic— are not always upheld within the ecotourism industry. Together, these pillars support the goal of meeting present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. But Mielly is cautious. “We are so lucky to have Indigenous people,” Mielly says. “They are our past, our future, and the key to our survival.”

“A Contest for Land”

Major infrastructure projects are increasingly encroaching on ancestral lands, displacing Indigenous communities and cutting them off from traditional territories and livelihoods, says Mielly, noting that “a contest for land is a contest for life; ecotourism is an invasion of these spaces.”

To study the ways in which poorly regulated ecotourism initiatives can reinforce historical patterns of exclusion and dispossession, Mielly and a team of researchers from GEM organized a dialogue with members of the Mbyá Guaraní community in the coastal region of Maricá, Brazil, to examine how business schools and multinational corporations influence Indigenous land rights.

The discussion centered on the Mareay project — an ambitious proposal to develop a vast coastal area through partnerships with major hospitality companies, which will include five luxury hotels, a resort with a golf course, residential units, an education complex, a health center, and a commercial area. Mielly cautioned that the “Disneyfication” of ecotourism ventures on the scale and scope of the Mareay project raises critical questions about the harm ecotourism developments inflict on coastal landscapes, local livelihoods, and Indigenous ways of life.

“When we have great income inequalities, ecotourism becomes ethically challenging,” said Mielly. “This is where we have to shift our gaze. Indigenous people want to be left alone. They don’t understand the value of these enterprises engulfing their communities, and if they do, they may take large cash settlements, but they lose their land,” she said, adding, “We keep colonizing these cultures.”

Infrastructure & Impact

This tension mirrors broader patterns observed across Latin America, where ambitious infrastructure projects often claim to be sustainable while dramatically reshaping environments and economies.

Increasingly, governments and private stakeholders are developing and investing in new airports, eco-friendly lodges, and transportation networks. These developments aim to strike a balance between supporting economic growth through tourism and protecting the ecosystems that attract visitors. However, studies suggest that large-scale infrastructure projects could shift the tourism model from high-value, low-impact travel to runaway mass tourism, with irreversible environmental and sociocultural consequences.

For instance, in preparation for hosting the COP30 climate summit in November 2025, Brazil is constructing the Avenida Liberdade, a four-lane highway through protected Amazon rainforest near Belém, designed to improve access for an anticipated 50,000 attendees. The project includes wildlife crossings, bicycle lanes, and solar-powered lighting.

The highway has sparked controversy due to its ecological impact on the rainforest. Local resident Claudio Verequete told the BBC that he used to make an income from harvesting açaí berries from trees that once occupied the land where the highway is being constructed. “Everything was destroyed,” he said. “Our harvest has already been cut down. We no longer have that income to support our family.” Verequete added that he has received no compensation from the state government, and he worries the construction of the road will lead to more deforestation in the future.

Venezuela is also investing in infrastructure within ecologically sensitive areas. According to a 2024 Reuters article, Los Roques National Park is undergoing massive development to attract tourists, including the expansion of airport runways and the construction of hotels. The government’s promotion of these projects as eco-friendly contrasts with criticisms from environmental groups regarding their social, economic, and ecological impact, as they have led to damage to coral reefs, mangroves, and endangered turtle nesting sites.

Sharing the Wealth

When ecotourism aligns conservation goals with community development, it can generate significant social, economic, and environmental benefits—but without effective revenue-sharing mechanisms, the wealth often flows to tour operators or foreign investors, leaving residents with limited economic gains, minimal decision-making power, and few long-term benefits from conservation efforts.

By allocating a fair share of profits to those who live in and around conservation areas, revenue sharing fosters community support for environmental protection and discourages unsustainable practices such as poaching, deforestation, or illegal land use.

Despite their potential to support local communities, revenue-sharing systems are vulnerable to corruption and exploitation. According to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) initiative Targeting Natural Resource Corruption (TNRC), implemented from 2018-2024, environmental corruption offenses range from misallocation of conservation funds to the exploitation of natural resources and local populations, which TNRC attributed to “weak governance, lack of transparency, and poorly enforced regulations that allow unscrupulous operators and officials to profit at the expense of the environment.” Without well-managed revenue sharing, funds intended to benefit conservation efforts and local populations may be diverted, exacerbating inequalities.

While revenue sharing provides immediate benefits to communities, it is the integration of models like Community-Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) that offers a more sustainable, long-term approach by empowering local populations to take active roles in managing and protecting their natural resources. Central to this model is the recognition of community ownership or rights over land, wildlife, or marine resources.

Namibia’s CBNRM program is widely recognized as one of the most successful examples of integrating ecotourism with community development and conservation. Launched in the 1990s, the program grants legal rights to local communities, organized into conservancies, to manage and benefit from wildlife and natural resources on communal lands. Through partnerships with private ecotourism operators and sustainable hunting concessions, these conservancies generate significant income that is reinvested into local infrastructure, education, healthcare, and conservation efforts.

According to a report from Community Conservation Namibia, in 2022 alone, tourism activities generated approximately $6 million in revenue for communities across 86 registered conservancies. Lodges, safari operations, and guided wildlife experiences provide direct employment for thousands of rural Namibians while also funding community-wide initiatives. Crucially, the program has created powerful incentives for conservation: as wildlife populations have rebounded, such as the growth of free-roaming desert lions and black rhinos, tourism revenue has increased, reinforcing a cycle of ecological and economic sustainability.

Beyond the Footprint: Ecotourism’s Positive Legacy

Despite the risks that ecotourism poses, it has also helped catalyze important gains in education and sustainable development in some areas. Volunteer travel, in particular, has brought resources, skills, and knowledge to remote regions, supporting the development of sustainable agriculture, architecture, renewable energy projects, and waste management systems.

Costa Rica stands out as a global leader in ecotourism, recognized for reinvesting tourism revenue in national parks and local communities. While challenges like corruption persist, Costa Rica has made ecotourism a central element of its national identity and development strategy, often cited as a model for sustainable tourism worldwide.

For instance, in Costa Rica, the ecotourism industry has funded educational programs and conservation initiatives, including the Monteverde Institute, which offers community-based research and educational programs in sustainability, ecology, and cultural heritage.

In Tortuguero, a once-remote Caribbean village in Costa Rica, sea turtle ecotourism has played a pivotal role in improving both environmental and public health outcomes. According to the Sea Turtle Conservancy (STC),revenue generated from guided turtle-watching tours and eco-lodges has helped fund essential services, including local health clinics and clean water systems. Organizations like STC have expanded their efforts beyond wildlife protection to include environmental education initiatives that address public health concerns, including waste management and mosquito-borne disease prevention.

Uganda has strategically leveraged ecotourism to strengthen local community infrastructure through the Bwindi National Forest Park, which generates revenue from gorilla trekking permits that support both conservation efforts and community health clinics, such as the Bwindi Community Hospital, which now serves tens of thousands of people with maternal care, HIV treatment, and preventive health services.

Sustainable Travel, Shared Futures

While ecotourism revenue cannot replace the reach and impact of international aid, it may be a valuable complementary strategy for building resilience, fostering self-reliance, and supporting long-term development, especially when integrated with education, conservation, and community governance efforts. “Good ecotourism educates us,” says Mielly, as travel networks can lead to long-term partnerships, funding, and knowledge-sharing that transcend cultural and national boundaries.

Notably, some for-profit commercial travel companies actively fund vital health and social programs in impoverished global communities near conservation centers. G Adventures, an international adventure travel company, partners with its non-profit Planeterra Foundation to support health and education projects in over 100 countries. Their initiatives include building water tanks in Panama, combating child sex tourism in Cambodia, and helping women weavers in Peru.

Intrepid Travel, a certified B Corporation, operates small-group tours worldwide with a strong commitment to responsible tourism. Through its non-profit arm, The Intrepid Foundation, the company has funded various health-related initiatives. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the foundation provided essential medical equipment, including oxygen tanks, to communities in India and delivered food packages to families in remote parts of Peru. Micato Safaris, a luxury safari operator in Africa, runs the AmericaShare program, which aids communities affected by HIV/AIDS in Kenya. For every safari sold, Micato sends a child to school and supports local clinics and meal programs, directly impacting community health and education.

Keeping Eco Ethical

The success of ecotourism is contingent upon the ways it integrates its benevolent vision into the development process. In some cases, well-managed ecotourism can promote conservation and economic benefits simultaneously. In other cases, it can inadvertently lead to environmental degradation, cultural erosion, and economic disparities if not adequately regulated.

Several reputable organizations, certifications, and frameworks help determine the legitimacy, ethical standards, and quality of volunteer travel companies. Some organizations are aligned with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Others are certified B Corporations, which undergo a rigorous accreditation process that evaluates social and environmental performance, accountability, and transparency.

Various bodies have emerged to define, regulate, and certify best practices in ecotourism, such as the Global Sustainable Tourism Council (GSTC), Rainforest Alliance, and Travelife, which establish transparent guidelines that prioritize ethical business practices and hold companies accountable in the ever-growing, high-stakes industry.

Through comprehensive criteria, organizations like the GSTC define what qualifies as “sustainable” or “eco-friendly” tourism, covering environmental protection, cultural respect, fair labor practices, and local economic development. Additionally, they assess and certify tour operators, accommodations, and entire destinations to ensure they meet these standards.

These regulatory bodies often conduct audits and ongoing assessments to ensure compliance, which helps prevent greenwashing by providing training and support to help tourism providers improve their sustainability practices, especially in developing regions where resources may be limited.

Look Beyond the Label: Vetting Ecotourism

Certifications serve as a credibility marker for consumers seeking responsible travel options. Experienced conservationists strongly advise prospective ecotourists to thoroughly research and evaluate the credentials, practices, and ethical standards of ecotourism organizations to ensure that their travel choices genuinely support conservation efforts, benefit local communities, and minimize ecological harm.

IGTOA’s Kareus cautions that it is essential to dig deeper and ask questions: “How are they giving back to the communities where they operate? How do they ensure that the economic benefits of what they are doing are shared as broadly as possible in those communities? Do they have programs in place to help support conservation, or community development, or to reduce any potential negative impacts of their operations?” are a few he suggested.

Blanton, Kareus, and Mielly all agree that companies are doing excellent work and genuinely making a positive impact. As Mielly notes, “Good ecotourism educates us,” reminding travelers of their role in fostering awareness and respect. Yet she also adds that “eco starts at home,” underscoring the idea that sustainable values must begin with personal responsibility and not just be outsourced to the places we visit.

This article was produced by Earth | Food | Life, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

The post The Dark Side of Ecotourism appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

Still from aerial footage of the Texas floods aired by CNN.

While offering his “thoughts and prayers” for the families of those drowned in the Texas floods, JD Vance referred to the killer torrents that swept away more than 100 people, including dozens of children, as “an incomprehensible tragedy.”

“Incomprehensible?”

Only if you ignore the fact that the Girls Camp was allowed to be built and continue operating in one of the most flood-prone valleys in the US, that the climate crisis is making these floods much more frequent and then in order to give more tax breaks to billionaires you gutted the staff of the National Weather Service that could have given these vulnerable children warning of the imminent danger that would claim their lives …If you don’t ignore these facts, this tragedy was both entirely predictable and avoidable.

Trump put his own self-exculpating spin on the floods, saying they were impossible to foresee: “Nobody expected it. Nobody saw it.” In fact, almost anyone who knew the slightest thing about the area known as “Flood Alley” saw it coming. Because it had already come, more than once. Previous recent floods had killed 10 people in 1987, 31 people in 1998 and 26 people in 2015.

The denuded hill country of central Texas contains some of the most flood-prone valleys in the United States. The Guadeloupe River was so flood-prone that the Kerr County sheriff had recommended installing a flash flood warning system back in 2016.  And the Obama administration agreed to the request, only to have the Texas Division of Environmental Management.

Climate change has made the extreme rainfall episodes that have plagued this region of Texas for decades even more frequent and more lethal. In central Texas, the intensity of extreme rainfall events has increased by 19% since 1985.

On July 3, remnants of Tropical Storm Barry, which had whacked the gulf coast of Mexico earlier in the week, settled over central Texas, eventually dumping four months of rainfall on the Texas Hill Country (about 1.8 trillion gallon) in the next three days. That afternoon, the depleted ranks of the National Weather Service issued its first alert, warning of flash floods in the Guadalupe River valley, predicting rainfall totals of more than 6 inches in 12 hours. The predictions were made by a seriously understaffed NWS office in San Antonio, which lacked both a chief meteorologist and a warning coordination meteorologist.

It’s not just the NWS that finds itself overworked and understaff as the warming climate unleashes stronger and stronger storms. The slashes to NOAA’s budget and staffing are going to dangerously degrade accurate and timely predictions of the threats posed by tropical storms, cyclones and hurricanes. According to Dr. Frank Marks, a 45-year hurricane veteran, the staff needed to fly NOAA Hurricane Hunter aircraft is down by 50% this year.

This initial forecast proved to be a fatal underestimation and the emergency alert, urging residents to evacuate to higher ground (though how high that ground was and whether it was high enough remains unclear) didn’t come out until 4:30 in the morning. By 6:AM, it was too late, the river was already flowing at record flood levels. More than 20 inches of rain would fall on the Guadalupe Valley watershed in the next three days, causing the river to surge from 3.5 feet to 34.29 feet in less than an hour and a half, sweeping away houses, bridges, barns, roads, farm animals and at least 120 people (173 remain missing), including as many as 27 young girls and counselors at Camp Mystic, the summer camp for evangelical girls. Most of the cabins at the camp, run for years by Conservative Christians, were located in flood zones, some in areas label “extreme risk.”

In 2019, the owners of the camp completed a multi-million dollar renovation. But instead of moving the most vulnerable cabins out of the flood zone, it built more cabins inside it. Anna Serra-Lobet, a flood risk researcher at the University of California at Berkeley, told the New York Times that allowing these cabins to be built in extreme risk “floodways” was “like pitching a tent in a highway. It’s going to happen, sooner or later.  A car is going to come or a flood is going to come.”

Texas Governor Gregg Abbott didn’t waste much time in urging a socialist response to the disaster, as he begged Trump for immediate help. The emergency aid wasn’t quick in coming, however. Indeed, FEMA’s response to the Texas floods was crippled by cost controls imposed on the agency by DHS head Kristi Noem, who didn’t authorize FEMA’s deployment of Urban Search and Rescue teams until Monday, more than 72 hours after the flooding began. Still Abbott rejected calls for an investigation into the lack of warnings and the bungled rescue operations, calling it “words of losers.” He presumably wasn’t talking about those who “lost” their lives and loved ones, though who knows given the hair-chested rhetoric he customarily deploys.

Days went by, as the death toll continued to mount, without a single word from Trump and Noem’s pick to head FEMA, David Richardson, prompting a FEMA staffer to denounce Richardson for showing “a lack of regard in disaster response, and a lack of care for communities that suffer through these disasters.”

Heckuva job, Puppy Slayer!

The post The Torrents of Texas appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

It’s all about personal responsibility. You’re responsible for your own life, your family’s life…

Whether you are at a home you have lived in your entire life, or at a vacation cottage, understanding your flood risk and being connected to emergency warnings is essential…

Our area has a history of monstrous and devastating flash floods.

Visitors to our area are particularly vulnerable to being caught unprepared for flash flooding because they are not connected to local emergency warning programs, like Kerr County’s Code Red.

– Dub Thomas, Emergency Management Coordinator, Kerr County Texas

No doubt, there is already a lot of finger-pointing going on after the deadly flash floods in Central Texas.

Texas officials are pointing fingers at the National Weather Service for allegedly inaccurate forecasts and lack of timely warnings.

Many are pointing fingers at Trump’s budget and personnel cuts to the National Weather Service and NOAA, which provide the science and monitoring networks relied on to produce accurate forecasts.

Some are highlighting climate change-driven extreme weather for the heavy rainfall that produced the flood.

None of these claims accurately focuses on the real underlying causes.

The region impacted by the floods is known as “flash flood alley“:

The Colorado River flows through the Texas Hill Country, an area known as “Flash Flood Alley’’ because it has one of the greatest risks for flash floods in the United States. The region is prone to flash floods because of its steep terrain, shallow soil and unusually high rainfall rates. …~~~ (“Managing Floods In Flash Flood Alley”)

Flash floods regularly occur there, particularly along the Guadalupe River.

Watch this video “Be Flood Aware” to get a clear scientific understanding of why the region is so prone to flash floods. It was prepared by the Kerr County, Texas Office of Emergency Management. Each County Emergency Management Plan is supervised by the State Office and submitted to FEMA as a condition of receiving FEMA disaster assistance funds.

But you’ll get a lot more than scientific information in that video.

You will get a government philosophy: you’re on your own: (a screenshot from the video makes that abundantly clear)

The camp where many children died was located on the banks of the highly flash flood-prone Guadalupe River – take a look:

The camp should never have been allowed to locate and operate there.

But because it has operated for decades, the camp owners – a mom and pop operation– should have been required to have special flash flood warning technology and management programs in place:

Agnes Stacy and her husband, Pop Stacy purchased the camp in 1939. Agnes Stacy had close ties to the camp after sending her daughter, Anne, there and later becoming a director at the facility in 1934. Today, Agnes’ grandson Dick Eastland and his wife, Tweety Eastland, serve as executive directors of Camp Mystic Guadalupe River and Camp Mystic Cypress Lake.

The Eastland family has become the fourth generation of operators of the camp with Dick and Tweety’s sons and daughter-in-laws serving as camp directors.

But that apparently was not the case – you’re on your own in Texas.

And the camp’s philosophy and program are Christian in nature, with no science focus, so it is unlikely that the camp directors, parents and campers had any understanding or awareness of flash flood risks:

Established in 1926, Camp Mystic focuses on three goals every summer for those in attendance — be a better person for being at Mystic, let Mystic bring out the best in them and grow spiritually.

The private summer camp aims to “provide young girls with a wholesome Christian atmosphere in which they can develop outstanding personal qualities and self-esteem.” The camp hosts sessions in two to four week spans over the course of the summer beginning in May.

Campers participate in more than 30 activities including, but not limited to aerobics, archery, basketball and arts and crafts. Girls can attend the camp only after finishing the second grade.

So there it is, the view from death in Texas: An Individualist anti-government “you’re on your own” philosophy; no land use restrictions; no mandatory safety regulations; and a Christian anti-science worldview.

The post Message From Deadly Texas Killer Floods: You’re On Your Own appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

The author patrolling the Alpine-Lakes Wilderness.

The U.S. Forest Service is headed for obsolescence due to recent personnel reductions, proposed budget cuts, and re-organization plans. The ability of the Forest Service to meet its legislatively mandated multiple-use mission to the American public is being systematically dismantled.

I, and many Americans, welcome thoughtful strategic reform of federal agencies, but what we have seen occur over the last several months to the Forest Service is nothing like that. We’ve seen an agency systematically and deliberately dismantled by indiscriminate firings, forced retirements, and coerced resignations. And the chaos is not over with a reduction in force and drastic structural reorganization planned and looming in the future, but currently on hold by a federal judge and awaiting a ruling by the supreme court.

The large number of personnel leaving the federal government has been widely reported in the news media. What has not been daylighted, however, and specifically in the case of the Forest Service, is that since firefighter and law enforcement positions were not eligible for the various incentives offered to encourage employees to leave, nearly all the employee reductions have come from the far-less-than 50 percent of the remaining agency workforce. That includes personnel that serve as wilderness managers, recreation specialists, fisheries and wildlife biologists, botanists, archeologists, research scientists, and the many varieties of forestry technicians doing work on the ground.

The short-term impact of personnel reductions will be seen this summer when all remaining employees and resources are devoted to responding to wildland fire upon reaching national preparedness level 3 (we’re currently at level 2). This is after thousands of qualified call-as-needed firefighters and fire operations support personnel have lost their jobs. This will come at the expense of the many other mission-critical responsibilities of those remaining employees.

We’ll also see the impact when recreational access, information and education, and infrastructure maintenance is reduced or absent while summer public visitation to national forests surges. Not unlike 2020 in the first year of the COVID pandemic, agency personnel are again directed by their leadership to keep open all recreational access and facilities regardless of whether they can safely and responsibly operate those sites and facilities to established standards. Instead, we will see unmitigated damage to nature from unchecked visitation to sensitive landscapes due to unmanaged recreation. We’ll see impacts to wilderness character, water quality, wildlife, and vegetation that in the most fragile and heavily used areas will never recover.

An especially acute example of reduced staffing with the potential for irreparable damage is on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness in Washington state. The cherished Enchantments area of the Alpine Lakes is one of the busiest wildland destinations in Washington state for outdoor recreation with more than 100,000 people hiking there each year. There are usually ten to twelve Wilderness Rangers on rotational patrols that care for the Enchantments each summer. Due to staffing reductions, the Wenatchee River Ranger District has one Wilderness Ranger on duty this summer to patrol not only the Enchantments but also the other 150,000 plus acres of designated Wilderness on the district. Additionally, the district now has one trail crew leader and no trail crew.

This is a situation that will result in not only irreparable damage to wilderness character and natural resources but will lead to unsafe and unsanitary conditions for visitors as unmitigated human waste, trash, parking congestion, and search and rescue operations are widespread. This is an entirely self-made crisis by the current administration due to implementing a poorly planned and executed deliberately destructive take down of the ability of the Forest Service to deliver services to the American public.

The gutting of the Forest Service is just one example of a national crisis that will take years or decades to recover from once we, as a society, choose to stop the damage to our federal system of governance. We must individually and collectively speak out to all our elected officials and demand a stop to the out-of-control damage being done. We need to begin to rebuild a federal government that we can rely on to deliver critical services to the American public, including the Forest Service, and protect our wild landscapes from destruction.

The post Gutting the Forest Service Will cause Irreparable Damage to Wilderness Character and Natural Resources appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

Beartooth Range, Greater Yellowstone. Photo: Jeffrey St. Clair.

Brooke Rollins, Trump’s Secretary of Agriculture, recently announced the administration’s plan to repeal the 2001 Roadless Rule and open an estimated 58 million acres of public Forest Service land to road-building, resource extraction, and development.

The Roadless Rule resulted from extensive inventories of the nation’s remaining roadless public lands beginning in 1967 after the historic enactment of the Wilderness Act of 1964. The first Roadless Area Review and Evaluation was issued in 1972, which the courts found deficient, resulting in the 1977 RARE II inventory — but no action was taken to protect those roadless lands.

Finally, after extensive effort including an Environmental Impact Statement and the opportunity for nationwide public review and comment, the 2001 Roadless Rule was issued in the closing days of the Clinton administration.

Americans overwhelmingly approved the Roadless Rule with more than a million comments in support because they value the solitude, secure wildlife habitat, and pristine watersheds that unlogged and unroaded forests provide. Despite its loopholes, the Roadless Rule delivered a more secure level of protection for the nation’s remaining — and dwindling — roadless areas since it restrained road-building by the Forest Service, which already has more miles of roads than the Interstate Highway System.

Now, however, because administrative rules are much easier to change than laws, the Trump administration intends to repeal the Roadless Rule without environmental analysis or the opportunity for public review and comment.

If Americans want to give our last wild and unroaded lands lasting protection in law, we have to do it through Congress with bills like the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act, which is now pending as S. 1198 in the Senate and H.R. 2420 in the House.

The Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act would designate all of the Inventoried Roadless Areas in the Northern Rockies as full Wilderness, protecting approximately 23 million acres of vital ecosystems and watersheds in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Eastern Washington, and Oregon.

Wilderness designation provides the highest level of protection available for the last of America’s wilderness-quality lands. For instance, the Act designates 1,800 miles of rivers and streams as Wild and Scenic Rivers. Water is the lifeblood of the West, and protecting the forests that accumulate snow and provide shade to slow melting keeps water available for downstream uses until later in the season when it is most needed, providing significant social and economic benefits.

By protecting the remaining habitat for native species in the Northern Rockies the Act will help recover threatened and endangered species including bull trout, lynx, wolverines, and grizzly bears as well as pinyon jays, fisher and many other species currently facing extinction due habitat destruction and the lack of secure connecting corridors to prevent inbreeding in isolated populations. Passing the Act would give us one of the best opportunities to halt or stop what has been termed the Earth’s “sixth great extinction event” in the Northern Rockies, which are still home to most of the native species that were here when the Lewis and Clark Expedition passed through 200 years ago.

Facing the increasing wildfires caused by our overheated climate, the Act provides significant benefits. It’s a proven fact that untouched wilderness lands tend to have far fewer and much smaller wildfires than lands which have been logged and roaded. Why? Because unlogged forests keep the land moist, shaded from the sun, and protected from the wind, which is the main driver of large, uncontrollable wildfires.

Our national forests are also one of the most effective tools to combat climate change because they capture carbon from the atmosphere. National Forests absorb an astounding 12 percent of our nation’s carbon emissions, with unlogged and old-growth forests absorbing the most. And they do it for free, saving the federal government millions of taxpayer dollars annually by reducing wasteful subsidies to the logging industry.

The Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act protects the environment, fights climate change, and saves taxpayers millions of dollars in logging subsidies simply by designating existing roadless areas as Wilderness.

The post Why We Meed the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act Now More Than Ever appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

Photograph Source: USEPA Environmental-Protection-Agency – Public Domain

Canadian energy company Enbridge’s Line 5 traverses an extremely sensitive ecological area across northern Wisconsin, 400 rivers and streams as well as a myriad of wetlands, in addition to a path under the Mackinac Straights between Lake Michigan and Lake Huron, all the while skirting the southern shore of Lake Superior. Such close proximity to the Great Lakes, lakes that hold over 20% of the world’s fresh surface water, lakes that supply drinking water to nearly 40 million people, yes, that does indeed make Line 5 a ticking time bomb.

Northern Wisconsin is also a very culturally sensitive area, home to the Bad River Reservation. The Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Chippewa were guaranteed rights to their lands by an 1854 treaty with the U.S. government. The easements for Line 5 across the reservation, granted to Enbridge by the Chippewa, expired in 2013 and the Bad River Band chose not to renew them. Enbridge continues to operate the line, illegally and in direct violation of the Bad River Band’s right to sovereignty over their land.

The Bad River Band has a guaranteed legal right to their land. They also have a right to Food Sovereignty, the internationally recognized right of food providers to have control over their land, seeds and water while rejecting the privatization of natural resources. Line 5 clearly impinges on the Band’s right to hunt, fish, harvest wild rice, to farm and have access to safe drinking water.

A federal court ruled that Enbridge has been trespassing on lands of the Bad River Band since 2013 and ordered the company to cease operations of Line 5 by June of 2026 (seems that immediate cessation would make more sense), but rather than shut down the aging line, Enbridge plans to build a diversion around the Bad River Reservation. They plan to move the pipeline out of the Bad River Band’s front yard into their back yard, leaving 100% of the threats to people and the environment in place.

Liquid petroleum (crude oil, natural gas and petroleum product) pipelines are big business in the U.S. With 2.6 million miles of oil and gas pipelines, the U.S. network is the largest in the world. If we continue our heavy and growing dependence on liquid fossil fuels, we must realize that we will continue to negatively impact the climate and the lives of everyone on the planet.

Instead of moving to a just transition away from fossil fuels, liquid or otherwise, the government continues to subsidize the industry through direct payments and tax breaks, refusing to acknowledge the cost of pollution-related health problems and environmental damage, a cost which is of course, incalculable.

There are nearly 20,000 miles of pipelines planned or currently under construction in the U.S., thus it would appear that government and private industry are in no hurry to break that addiction, much less make a just transition. While no previous administration was in any hurry to break with the fossil fuel industry, they at least gave the illusion of championing a transition to cleaner energy.

The current administration is abundantly clear. Their strategy is having no strategy. They don’t like wind and solar and they plan to end any support for renewable energy. They don’t care if they upend global markets, banking, energy companies or certainly any efforts to help developing countries transition away from fossil fuels.

Pipelines are everywhere across the U.S., a spiderweb connecting wells, refineries, transportation and distribution centers. The vast majority of pipelines are buried and many, if not all, at some point cross streams, rivers, lakes and run over aquifers. Pipeline ruptures and other assorted failures will continue and spillage will find its way into the bodies of water they skirt around or pass under. It’s not a question if they will leak, but when.

Enbridge controls the largest network of petroleum pipelines in the Great Lakes states, and they are hardly immune to spills. Between 1999 and 2013 it was reported that Enbridge had over 1,000 spills dumping a reported 7.4 million gallons of oil.

In 2010  Enbridge’s Line 6B ruptured and contaminated the Kalamazoo River in Michigan, the largest inland oil spill in U.S. history. Over 1.2 million gallons of oil were recovered from the river between 2010 and 2014. How much went downstream or was buried in sediment, we’ll never know.

In 2024 a fault in Enbridge Line 6 caused a spill of 70 thousand gallons near Cambridge Wisconsin. And Enbridge’s most infamous pipeline, the 71-year-old Line 5 from Superior Wisconsin to Sarnia Ontario, has had 29 spills in the last 50 years, loosing over 1 million gallons of oil.

Some consider Line 5 to be a “public good” because, as Enbridge argues, shutting the line down will shut down the U.S. economy and people will not be able to afford to heat their homes — claims they have never supported with any evidence. A public good is one that everyone can use, that everyone can benefit from. A public good is not, as Enbridge apparently believes, a mechanism for corporate profit.

Line 5 is a privately owned property, existing only to generate profits for Enbridge. If it were a public good, Enbridge would certainly be giving more attention to the rights of the Bad River Band, the well-being of all the people who depend on the clean waters of the Great Lakes and to protecting the sensitive environment of northern Wisconsin and Michigan. They are not. Their trespassing, their disregard for the environment, their continuing legal efforts to protect their bottom line above all else, only points to their self-serving avarice.

The Bad River Band wants Enbridge out, and in their eyes, it is not a case of “not in my backyard.” They do not want Line 5 in anyone’s backyard.

The post Enbridge Line 5: A Clear and Present Danger appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

Photo by Issy Bailey

Are we all fools? Apparently, the US Forest Service and our politicians think so as we see exploding budgets for addressing wildfire that result in taxpayers subsidizing logging our National Forests in remote wild places. I call it wildfire hysteria because it certainly is not a logical thought process as politicians and agencies rely on an uninformed public that can be manipulated by fear into supporting deforestation and destruction of our most important wildlife habitats. This is the Shell Game, deceiving the public.

The work of our team on Canada lynx habitat in the Rocky Mountains and litigating timber projects that fragment and destroy that habitat drove me to explore in detail the underlying data and justification for these projects. A common thread is they are based on being within the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). What is this WUI?

FEMA has defined the WUI as the “zone of transition between unoccupied land and human development. It is the line, area or zone where structures and other human development meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland or vegetative fuels.” FEMA states that more than 60,000 communities in the US are at risk for WUI fires, that between 2002 and 2016 an average of over 3,000 structures per year were lost to WUI fires. Finally, they say, “The WUI area continues to grow by approximately 2 million acres per year.”

Why the growth in the WUI? Are the Forests moving into town? No, of course not, people are moving into forested or other vegetated areas that can burn, creating an untenable situation. This is the problem as local governments approve subdivisions, resorts and individual homes in areas adjacent to our National Forests or other wildlands. The map shows states such as Montana have a high percentage of homes and structures in this WUI.

Where’s the Shell Game?

According to a recent article, the Forest Service is using the threat of fire to meet timber targets while “The agency has sought to minimize environmental oversight and used authorities critics say incentivize the logging of older trees”.

One of those authorities is the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA). This was enacted under GW Bush and is an Orwellian title that disguises habitat Destruction as Restoration. Under HFRA, agencies such as the Forest Service can use exclusions from doing environmental analysis based on the area being in the Wildland Urban Interface, or at risk of insects and disease. What we as ecologists or naturalists would call a healthy forest is now redefined as in need of manipulation and ultimately, logging.

Natural disturbances such as fire, insects or disease, which reset succession and create diverse habitats, are to be prevented by the current congressional and agency cure. The cure is called fuel treatments or fuel reduction. These are used as the rationale to clearcut, thin, chain, and burn large swaths of our public lands and forests, thereby eliminating functional ecosystems and secure habitat for wildlife such as Grizzly bears, Canada lynx, deer, elk and myriad small mammals and birds. Millions of acres are at risk, not from wildfire, which is natural, but from agenda-driven extraction and destruction.

I recall one of my first projects of this sort was in the North Fork of the Salmon River in Idaho. I looked at the maps and aerial images provided by the Forest Service and could not find any evidence of anything “urban” other than a house here or there and a ski area on the National Forest in mostly open terrain. Yet miles of the watershed were to be logged to protect this so-called urban place, like it was Central Park or some place in a city. Where were the fire hydrants? Did Lemhi County require anything other than handing out permits to build with no requirements, no government oversight, no personal responsibility, no fire protection? But as sure as a fire happens, they will be there with their hands out for Federal dollars and more fire suppression.

My classic example of this western hypocrisy is illustrated by the late Senator Jake Garn of Utah. Senator Garn wanted to pave the Burr Trail through what is now the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument. He said the Federal Government needed to get out of the way so the road could be paved, but “we sure could use $50 million to pay for it”. I paraphrase, but you get the gist, its Manifest Destiny, private property rights, exploitation for private profit with no constraints and at the expense of the taxpayers, watersheds, rivers and streams, forests, and wildlife.

What about Fuel Treatments and Wildfires

There has been much written about the ineffectiveness of these fuel treatments due to drought and wind-driven fires either not encountering treated areas or burning right through them. For example, one paper points out that “wildlands cannot be fireproofed”, that residual biomass can still burn, and that these fuel treatments are transient, needing repeating at intervals. It’s a “futile and counter-productive” endeavor. The US Forest Service Fire Sciences Lab concluded from analyzing fuel treatments that the “net effect of all treatments…averaged a 7% reduction in burned area”. Another analysis found that the probability of fuel treatments encountering a fire within a period of 20 years of reduced fuels is 2 – 7.9% .

Then there are examples of areas where structures are burned and live trees remain adjacent to them, or burning embers jump highways and rivers and ignite more fires. Noted fire scientists have written about the problem being not the forest, but the wind driven burning embers igniting homes miles away. These then ignite adjacent homes.

I live in a log cabin in the footprint of the 2018 Roosevelt Fire near Bondurant, Wyoming that burned 60,000 acres. The old cabin survived while large fir trees next to it burned. Why did the old log cabin survive? I can only believe it was the metal roof. My example would seem to indicate that clearing all vegetation next to the home is maybe not needed. Instead, applying home hardening which includes non-combustible roofing, keeping flammable tree debris off roofs, out of gutters or on the ground within 5 feet of flammable siding and other measures. Most recommendations are to clear trees and brush within a zone of 100 feet from the structure. These should be local government enforced requirements and property owner responsibilities and if not done, neither the insurance companies nor government should be held liable for bailing them out. Read more.

The Federal Government Mandate for Logging

From the top down, our Federal Government is intent on paving the way for more and more of these WUI projects to increase logging. A current White House Executive Order emphasizes “Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production” along with expanded exclusions from oversight such as laws that protect endangered species and other wildlife.

Then there is the Secretary of Agriculture Memorandum “Increasing Timber Production and Designating an Emergency Situation on National Forest System Lands” claiming our National Forests are “in crisis due to uncharacteristically severe wildfires, insect and disease outbreaks, invasive species, and other stressors whose impacts have been compounded by too little active management”. Active management, meaning more logging. In total, this Emergency Situation Designation applies to 112,646,000 acres, or 59% of our National Forests. Historical records indicate that the area burned in recent wildfires is low compared to the past.

Then, to quote Tom Shultz, Forest Service Chief, “I want to refocus our efforts on safety, active forest management, fire management and recreation. As a field-based organization, safety must always be at the forefront of our minds. Years of fire suppression and declining timber harvest have left us with significant fuel buildup. I want us to do more to create resilient forests through active forest management, including timber sales, fuels reduction through mechanical thinning and prescribed fires, as well as fighting fires safely and protecting resource values.” All sounds good, right? Something for everyone except wildlife.

The Money

The Forest Service Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Justification shows allocations of $8.9 billion including $2.6 billion for Wildland Fire Management and an off-budget $3.2 billion from the Wildfire Suppression Operations Reserve Fund. The Wildland Fire Mgt funds include fire “pre-suppression” activities such as forest thinning, prescribed burns and so forth. Commercial timber harvest would be justified within these activities. A recent article describes annual losses on timber sales of nearly $2 billion.

In California, for example, private insurers are required to cover homes, and pass these costs to homeowners across the State through surcharges, while regulations to create buffers around homes are delayed. Meanwhile, who pays? A recent article by Kenneth Abraham, University of Virginia Law School suggests it could be “rising insurance premiums, taxpayer-funded bailouts or homeowners absorbing significant losses”. Then we have the example of Gavin Newsom suspending environmental laws so reconstruction can be expedited. We rush to rebuild so history can repeat itself.

Montana

I used the Forest Service model to map the WUI for Montana to see the trend in WUI area over time. According to their model, the WUI has increased by 77%, or 612,000 acres in the last three decades. Of course, the forest hasn’t moved, people have moved to the forest.

Intermix and Interface terms relate to whether structures are surrounded by at least 50% vegetation cover (intermix) or within 2.4 km of a patch of vegetation at least 5 km² that contains at least 75% vegetation cover (Interface).

We are seeing an onslaught of logging, thinning and burning (fuel reduction) projects proposed by the Forest Service in Montana and other states, largely justified as being in the WUI. Recent examples of these our team is opposing are the Round Star (28,000 acres), Cyclone Bill (40,000 acres), and Rumbling Owl (5,400 acres) projects in the Flathead NF, or the Pintler Face (11,000 acres) project in the Beaverhead Deerlodge NF. These occur in or adjacent to areas previously logged or “treated” and are only the tip of the iceberg.

The Beaverhead Deerlodge NF Case

The series of maps below tell the story of the WUI in the Beaverhead Deerlodge NF (BHDL). I mapped the BHDL to show the nearest urban centers. Most are many miles from the Forest. Anaconda and Butte are the closest to the Forest.

I used data from the BHDL to map the Wildland Urban Interface within this 3.6 million-acre National Forest. In the map you can see a large part of the BHDL is classified as WUI. Roads are included in the WUI with mile-wide buffers. The WUI as defined by the BHDL is 1.6 million acres, or 44% of the Forest. Under the exclusions provided in the HFRA this 44% of the Forest is now available for logging and other fuel treatments with minimal protection for wildlife and watersheds, while serving as a barrier to public input or litigation to stop these “cures”.

But, if we want to know the actual truth about the WUI in this National Forest, I used the most recent model developed by the US Geological Survey and more current building densities. (Ironically, this publication is found on the Forest Service website). This model analysis resulted in a total area of WUI within the BHDL of 35,000 acres. This is 2% of the Forest, not the 44% the BHDL itself has delineated to clear the way for wholesale logging. There you have it, there can be no explanation other than enabling subsidized logging on our National Forests, a situation some call “logging without laws”. The Shell Game.

Beaverhead Deerlodge National Forest (green outline) with nearest Urban centers.

Beaverhead Deerlodge National Forest with its version of the WUI (in orange).

Beaverhead Deerlodge National Forest with WUI mapped based on the actual occurrence of structures and definitions in the law. (Orange areas are Intermix WUI and red areas are Interface WUI).

The post Wildfire: Government Shell Game appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.