 |
|
|
|||||
When the Vietnam War finally ended on April 30, 1975, it left behind a landscape scarred with environmental damage. Vast stretches of coastal mangroves, once housing rich stocks of fish and birds, lay in ruins. Forests that had boasted hundreds of species were reduced to dried-out fragments, overgrown with invasive grasses. The term ecocide had been coined in the late 1960s to describe the U.S. militarys use of herbicides like Agent Orange and incendiary weapons like napalm to battle guerrilla forces that used jungles and marshes for cover. Fifty years later, Vietnams degraded ecosystems and dioxin-contaminated soils and waters still reflect the long-term ecological consequences of the war. Efforts to restore these damaged landscapes and even to assess the long-term harm have been limited. As an environmental scientist and anthropologist who has worked in Vietnam since the 1990s, I find the neglect and slow recovery efforts deeply troubling. Although the war spurred new international treaties aimed at protecting the environment during wartime, these efforts failed to compel post-war restoration for Vietnam. Current conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East show these laws and treaties still arent effective. Agent Orange and daisy cutters The U.S. first sent ground troops to Vietnam in March 1965 to support South Vietnam against revolutionary forces and North Vietnamese troops, but the war had been going on for years before then. To fight an elusive enemy operating clandestinely at night and from hideouts deep in swamps and jungles, the U.S. military turned to environmental modification technologies. The most well-known of these was Operation Ranch Hand, which sprayed at least 19 million gallons of herbicides over approximately 6.4 million acres of South Vietnam. The chemicals fell on forests, and also on rivers, rice paddies, and villages, exposing civilians and troops. More than half of that spraying involved the dioxin-contaminated defoliant Agent Orange. Herbicides were used to strip the leaf cover from forests, increase visibility along transportation routes, and destroy crops suspected of supplying guerrilla forces. As news of the damage from these tactics made it back to the U.S., scientists raised concerns about the campaigns environmental impacts to President Lyndon Johnson, calling for a review of whether the U.S. was intentionally using chemical weapons. American military leaders position was that herbicides did not constitute chemical weapons under the Geneva Protocol, which the U.S. had yet to ratify. Scientific organizations also initiated studies within Vietnam during the war, finding widespread destruction of mangroves, economic losses of rubber and timber plantations, and harm to lakes and waterways. In 1969, evidence linked a chemical in Agent Orange, 2,4,5-T, to birth defects and stillbirths in mice because it contained TCDD, a particularly harmful dioxin. That led to a ban on domestic use and suspension of Agent Orange use by the military in April 1970, with the last mission flown in early 1971. Incendiary weapons and the clearing of forests also ravaged rich ecosystems in Vietnam. The U.S. Forest Service tested large-scale incineration of jungles by igniting barrels of fuel oil dropped from planes. Particularly feared by civilians was the use of napalm bombs, with more than 400,000 tons of the thickened petroleum used during the war. After these infernos, invasive grasses often took over in hardened, infertile soils. Rome Plows, massive bulldozers with an armor-fortified cutting blade, could clear 1,000 acres a day. Enormous concussive bombs, known as daisy cutters, flattened forests and set off shock waves killing everything within a 3,000-foot radius, down to earthworms in the soil. The U.S. also engaged in weather modification through Project Popeye, a secret program from 1967 to 1972 that seeded clouds with silver iodide to prolong the monsoon season in an attempt to cut the flow of fighters and supplies coming down the Ho Chi Minh Trail from North Vietnam. Congress eventually passed a bipartisan resolution in 1973 urging an international treaty to prohibit the use of weather modification as a weapon of war. That treaty came into effect in 1978. The U.S. military contended that all these tactics were operationally successful as a trade of trees for American lives. Despite Congresss concerns, there was little scrutiny of the environmental impacts of U.S. military operations and technologies. Research sites were hard to access, and there was no regular environmental monitoring. Recovery efforts have been slow After the fall of Saigon to North Vietnamese troops on April 30, 1975, the U.S. imposed a trade and economic embargo on all of Vietnam, leaving the country both war-damaged and cash-strapped. Vietnamese scientists told me they cobbled together small-scale studies. One found a dramatic drop in bird and mammal diversity in forests. In the A Li valley of central Vietnam, 80% of forests subjected to herbicides had not recovered by the early 1980s. Biologists found only 24 bird and five mammal species in those areas, far below normal in unsprayed forests. Only a handful of ecosystem restoration projects were attempted, hampered by shoestring budgets. The most notable began in 1978, when foresters began hand-replanting mangroves at the mouth of the Saigon River in Cn Gi forest, an area that had been completely denuded. In inland areas, widespread tree-planting programs in the late 1980s and 1990s finally took root, but they focused on planting exotic trees like acacia, which did not restore the original diversity of the natural forests. Chemical cleanup is still underway For years, the U.S. also denied responsibility for Agent Orange cleanup, despite the recognition of dioxin-associated illnesses among U.S. veterans and testing that revealed continuing dioxin exposure among potentially tens of thousands of Vietnamese. The first remediation agreement between the two countries only occurred in 2006, after persistent advocacy by veterans, scientists, and nongovernmental organizations led Congress to appropriate $3 million for the remediation of the Da Nang airport. That project, completed in 2018, treated 150,000 cubic meters of dioxin-laden soil at an eventual cost of over $115 million, paid mostly by the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID. The cleanup required lakes to be drained and contaminated soil, which had seeped more than 9 feet deeper than expected, to be piled and heated to break down the dioxin molecules. Another major hot spot is the heavily contaminated Bin Ho airbase, where local residents continue to ingest high levels of dioxin through fish, chicken, and ducks. Agent Orange barrels were stored at the base, which leaked large amounts of the toxin into soil and water, where it continues to accumulate in animal tissue as it moves up the food chain. Remediation began in 2019; however, further work is at risk with the Trump administrations near elimination of USAID, leaving it unclear if there will be any American experts in Vietnam in charge of administering this complex project. Laws to prevent future ecocide are complicated While Agent Oranges health effects have understandably drawn scrutiny, its long-term ecological consequences have not been well studied. Current-day scientists have far more options than those 50 years ago, including satellite imagery, which is being used in Ukraine to identify fires, flooding, and pollution. However, these tools cannot replace on-the-ground monitoring, which often is restricted or dangerous during wartime. The legal situation is similarly complex. In 1977, the Geneva Conventions governing conduct during wartime were revised to prohibit widespread, long term, and severe damage to the natural environment. A 1980 protocol restricted incendiary weapons. Yet oil fires set by Iraq during the Gulf War in 1991, and recent environmental damage in the Gaza Strip, Ukraine, and Syria indicate the limits of relying on treaties when there are no strong mechanisms to ensure compliance. An international campaign currently underway calls for an amendment to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court to add ecocide as a fifth prosecutable crime alongside genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and aggression. Some countries have adopted their own ecocide laws. Vietnam was the first to legally state in its penal code that Ecocide, destroying the natural environment, whether committed in time of peace or war, constitutes a crime against humanity. Yet the law has resulted in no prosecutions, despite several large pollution cases. Both Russia and Ukraine also have ecocide laws, but these have not prevented harm or held anyone accountable for damage during the ongoing conflict. Lessons for the future The Vietnam War is a reminder that failure to address ecological consequences, both during war and after, will have long-term effects. What remains in short supply is the political will to ensure that these impacts are neither ignored nor repeated. Pamela McElwee is a professor of human ecology at Rutgers University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
Since assuming office, the Trump administration has upended diversity, equity, and inclusion programs with startling efficiency. Over his first 100 days, President Donald Trump has taken a multipronged approach to derailing DEI initiatives across the federal government, academic institutions, and even the private sector. Through an array of executive actions, Trump has targeted federal anti-discrimination measures that date back 60 years and threatened to withhold funding from public schools and universities that maintain DEI programs. By explicitly directing federal agencies to investigate private employers, Trumps orders have also had a chilling effect across corporate Americaleading a number of companies to cut back on DEI initiatives or at least create the illusion of doing so. As each day seems to bring a new DEI-related action or court ruling, it’s clear that undoing the progress many employers and federal institutions have made on equity and inclusion continues to be a core priority for this government. Heres a closer look at how Trump has chipped away at DEI programs during just his first few months in office: The federal workforce Trump has moved swiftly to eliminate DEI programs that are squarely within his purviewnamely, reversing the equity requirements that President Joe Biden had put in place during his term. One of Trumps first edicts was an executive order that forced agencies to eliminate all illegal DEI efforts. The order explicitly noted that DEI offices would have to be disbanded and roles like chief diversity officer would have to be terminated. The Trump administration also told federal workers they were required to report anyone who tried to continue DEI work under a different nameor risk adverse consequences. Since Trump handed down this order in January, federal agencies have cut at least 428 DEI roles and put those workers on administrative leave, according to The New York Times. (That figure only includes data from the agencies that have publicly reported those job cuts.) Some federal workers who were affected by the cuts claimed their roles had little to do with DEI. Others have said that even their employee resource groups were affected as agencies cracked down on DEI to comply with the executive order. Through other executive actions, Trump reiterated the importance of merit-based hiring across the federal government, and that it should not be based on impermissible factors, such as ones commitment to illegal racial discrimination under the guise of equity, or ones commitment to the invented concept of gender identity over sex. By rescinding an executive order that dates back to 1965, Trump also took aim at a key policy that has been critical to promoting racial equity and curtailing discriminatory hiring practices among federal contractors. For decades, this order has forced the hand of companies that do business with the federal government, compelling them to adopt affirmative action plans that diversified the workforce. With Trumps action, some of the largest employers in the country are no longer subject to those requirements. The education system In recent weeks, Trump has ramped up pressure on the education system, fixing his sights on some of the most elite universities in the country. The administration is currently in the midst of a very public fight with Harvard University, stripping the school of billions of dollars in federal funding, in part because of its refusal to amend its DEI policies and admissions practices. (A number of other universities have also been singled out by Trump over DEI-related issues and face similar threats to their funding.) Last week, Trump pushed through an executive action aimed at college accreditors, who he argues have helped impose DEI requirements on universities. Trumps actions have already pushed many colleges to revise their DEI programs, regardless of whether they have been explicitly targeted: A recent Politico analysis found that more than 30 public universities have either closed their DEI offices or restructured them over the past few yearsincluding the University of Michigan, which was once known for its robust DEI program. While Trumps ongoing battle with higher education has garnered more attention, other academic institutions have not escaped scrutiny over their DEI efforts. In a memo earlier this month, the Trump administration ordered all public schools to eliminate DEI programs, again threatening to rescind federal funding. For now, this directive has been blocked by federal judgesand a coalition of attorneys general in Democratic states have brought a lawsuit against the Trump administration. Since taking office, Trump has also mounted investigations into the public school systems in California, Colorado, and Maine over DEI-related concerns like gender-neutral bathrooms and the rights of transgender students. The private sector Beyond the executive order targeting federal contractors, the Trump administration has attempted to exert its influence over the private sector in other ways. In the same action, Trump clearly directed federal agencies to investigate private-sector companies over any DEI programs that constitute illegal discrimination or preferences. This edict has sparked fear and confusion among corporate leaders, with many executives reportedly losing sleep over the threat of federal investigations. Experts say that a major source of concern has been the lack of clarity around what might be considered illegal DEI. Trumps orders have accelerated a shift in corporate America that had already been underway for some time. In the years since the racial reckoning of 2020, many companies have quietly backed away from the DEI initiatives they had seemingly embraced at the time. Since the Supreme Court overturned affirmative action in 2023, however, employers have taken more drastic action in response to conservative activists like Robby Starbuck, who has waged social media campaigns to pressure companies into cutting their DEI program. Companies like Walmart and McDonalds have eliminated certain DEI policies and pulled out of the Human Rights Commissions Corporate Equality Index, an annual benchmarking survey that measures workplace inclusion for LGBTQ+ workers and is often touted by employers. Even tech giants like Meta and Google have made notable changes to representation goals, which had become common practice across the industry. Some DEI experts argue that not all of these changes should be seen as a full-throated rebuke of diversity work. In some cases, employers are merely folding DEI work into other teams or tweaking programs to ensure they are legally soundnot to mention evaluating whether they continue to be effective. If you see that theres no longer a DEI title at this company, I think that could be bad news, Joelle Emerson, the cofounder and CEO of culture and inclusion platform Paradigm, previously told Fast Company. Or it could be that the company is actually very strategically embedding some of this expertise in ways that are going to have more impact on the business. In fact, a survey recently conducted by Paradigm found that only a fraction of companies19%had actually reduced funding for DEI programs. Still, plenty of companies are now operating from a place of fear, carefully calibrating their external messaging on DEI and in some cases overcorrecting to avoid litigation or excessive scrutiny from Trump. The administrations anti-DEI agenda also seems to be shaping the Equal Employment Opportunity Commissions priorities under new acting chair Andrea Lucas, who has issued guidance on what the agency considers unlawful DEI-related discrimination. In March, Lucas made a controversial decision to send letters to 20 prominent law firms requesting details on their DEI-related practicesfour of which have already reached settlement agreements with the EEOC and agreed to drop the term DEI.
Category:
E-Commerce
Dive into the exhilarating world of innovation with FC Explains, a video series that spotlights the game changers and visionaries from Fast Companys prestigious Most Innovative Companies list. This annual ranking celebrates the trailblazers who are reshaping industries and cultures, pushing boundaries, and transforming the world. First up is Bluesky.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||