Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Destinations Hit by Natural Disasters Need Tourists Back—but Maybe Not in the Same Way as Before

News Feed
Monday, April 14, 2025

Destinations Hit by Natural Disasters Need Tourists Back—but Maybe Not in the Same Way as Before Places like Maui and Asheville, North Carolina, rebuilding after wildfires and hurricanes, are doing so with a mind to sustainable tourism Shoshi Parks - History Correspondent April 14, 2025 8:00 a.m. People gather on Kaanapali Beach, a popular tourist destination near Lahaina, Hawaii, in August 2024. Mario Tama/Getty Images When wildfires engulfed the Hawaiian island of Maui’s historic downtown Lahaina in August 2023, Kohola Brewery was caught in their flames. The facility and taproom were completely destroyed, along with the core of the town’s Front Street. It took the beer’s producers only five months to begin brewing again—this time with borrowed equipment and space at Kona Brewing Hawaii. But returning to Lahaina to rebuild was out of the question. Instead, they opened a new taproom in Wailea about 30 miles from the original, “a pivot to brick-and-mortar” that allowed them to serve food for the first time but not to resume brewing on their own, says Isaac Bancaco, vice president of operations at Kohola. In its original form, the brewery’s taproom did business with the nearly three million tourists who visited Maui each year. Last year, that number was down by almost a quarter. The Kohola Brewery taproom and restaurant is one of many businesses ready to welcome visitors back to Maui—but are they ready to return? Buildings smolder days after a wildfire gutted Lahaina in August 2023. Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images The planet is at a climate crossroads. Natural disasters are increasing so much in frequency and intensity that even places once believed to be insulated from the worst of what’s to come—the cool, wet Pacific Northwest, for example—are experiencing greater effects from wildfire, storms, flooding, landslides and drought. These events devastate local communities not just as the tragedy unfolds but in its aftermath. Those with diverse economies can be somewhat nimble in their recovery. Houston, which was devastated by Hurricane Harvey in 2017, bounced back more quickly than expected because its economy was split among a wide variety of industries, including health care, aerospace, shipping, manufacturing and technology. Those sectors that couldn’t immediately resume business were balanced out by those that could. But when a community is dependent on a single industry, rebuilding can be much harder. This is especially true when tourism is the primary—or in some cases the only—economic driver. “When the economy is very much reliant on one industry and that industry fails, it’s very vulnerable,” says Paloma Zapata, CEO of Sustainable Travel International, an organization working to help the global travel industry strengthen its climate resilience. Heavy rains from Hurricane Helene caused record flooding and damage on September 28, 2024 in Asheville, North Carolina. Melissa Sue Gerrits/Getty Images Tourism destinations hit by natural disasters need visitors in order for local people and businesses to survive. But important questions underlie tourists’ return: Is restoring the tourism status quo the best future for a destination that’s been impacted by natural disaster? Would it be better for local communities and environments if a pre-disaster form of tourism never returned at all? The answer is complicated. “Typically, a destination that relies on tourism is not going to stop relying on tourism just because of a natural disaster,” says Zapata. But natural disasters can act as a pivot point for both overdeveloped places and tourists to re-evaluate the sustainability of their behavior. Destinations dependent on tourism need visitors to return, but “there needs to be a balance between economic development, conservation, community well-being and the visitor experience,” she continues. In the United States alone, several popular tourism destinations are in varying stages of recovery following calamitous natural disasters. In August 2023, the fifth-deadliest wildland fire in U.S. history erupted on the Hawaiian island of Maui. High winds drove the flames from the hills to the sea, destroying more than 2,200 structures in and around the historic district of Lahaina, and taking more than 100 lives. In September 2024, the Blue Ridge Mountain town of Asheville, North Carolina, suffered extreme flooding due to Hurricane Helene, which dropped around 14 inches of rain—40 percent of the city’s annual rainfall—in just three days. Mudslides and cresting rivers there destroyed around 2,300 structures. Then, this January, wildfires ripped across drought-affected brush and forestland in Los Angeles, destroying entire neighborhoods and causing an estimated $250 billion in damages. Residents of Asheville view damage to the Arts District downtown after Hurricane Helene. Melissa Sue Gerrits/Getty Images These events are nothing short of catastrophic for local communities, but the way they are portrayed in the media often doesn’t fully reflect what’s happening on the ground, according to Victoria Isley, president and CEO of Explore Asheville. Disaster coverage creates “global impressions that are very difficult to combat,” she says, like the idea that local infrastructure no longer exists. “There are many places, like downtown Asheville, that visibly look like nothing ever happened,” says Isley, six months after Helene. “The majority of our restaurants, breweries and music venues are open downtown, in South Asheville and in North Asheville. Almost all of our hotels are open. Our airport has been functional the entire time, and half of a brand-new terminal will open this summer.” Even many of the small mountain towns around Asheville that were hit hard by the storm—including Spruce Pine, for instance, which has one of the only mines on Earth for the high-purity quartz used in electronics, solar panels and the chips that power artificial intelligence—were back to work within weeks. Still, in the months following Hurricane Helene, estimates that Asheville’s tourism industry would experience a 70 percent decline in the last quarter of 2024—a loss of more than $584 million in revenue—circulated through the news cycle. By the end of February 2025, it was actually the opposite that had occurred, with a 4 percent increase in visitors from pre-Helene numbers. In Maui, while some of the island’s celebrity homeowners initially discouraged visitors from returning, the region was welcoming people back two months after the wildfires, says Kalani Kaʻanāʻanā, chief stewardship officer at the Hawaii Tourism Authority. Outside the core of historic Lahaina, which centered on the ocean-facing Front Street, the region today appears virtually untouched by the disaster, and “many Lahaina businesses have reopened or relocated,” Kaʻanāʻanā says. Even so, the island has struggled to attract the same volume of visitors as it once did. The University of Hawaii Economic Research Organization predicts that Maui will have almost 400,000 fewer tourists in 2025 than the 2.97 million it received in 2022, and half a million fewer than pre-pandemic levels in 2019. Maui will have almost 400,000 fewer tourists in 2025 than the 2.97 million it received in 2022. Mario Tama/Getty Images “Lower visitor numbers continue to affect local businesses and, by extension, our communities,” continues Kaʻanāʻanā. With around 80 percent of the region’s economy rooted in tourism, the slow recovery has resulted in the need for many families to relocate to other islands or the continental U.S. just to survive. The entire Maui County, which includes the island of Maui and two neighboring islands with small populations, Molokai and Lanai, employs fewer than 20,000 people in its two second-largest industries, retail trade and health care and social assistance. Recent data indicates that while Maui’s health care, construction and educational services industries are slowly growing, they remain only a small fraction of the economy overall. While economic diversification could help to build Maui’s resilience, the reality is that “usually tourism-dependent economies are dependent to tourism because they don’t have a choice,” says CB Ramkumar, vice chair of the Global Sustainable Tourism Council. If visitors do not return, the entire community would collapse. Ironically, because tourism is a major driver of carbon emissions and human-caused climate change, restoring high numbers of visitors could also have a similarly negative impact on the community in the long run. It’s a “dual issue,” Ramkumar says. It’s important for destinations to give serious thought to the kind of tourism they want back following a natural disaster, says Zapata. “There’s always going to be support from governments to ‘build back better,’ but most of the cost is going to come from the [business] owners’ pockets.” It’s unfortunately true that some of the infrastructural challenges hotels and other businesses face after a disaster are due to the corners they cut to keep costs to a minimum in the first place. “It’s going to take a big effort first with infrastructure, the opportunity to build more renewable energy sources and use more innovative materials, and also [with the type of tourists] you target,” Zapata continues. In the Caribbean, for example, restoring mangrove swamps and relocating businesses unwisely established in their footprint is likely to make a destination more ecologically resilient and better able to withstand disasters in the future. “Looking at a higher-value, lower-impact model for any destination [while simultaneously] diversifying the economy are really the keys to being able to withstand when a natural disaster comes,” says Zapata. Even when a destination has a plan for sustainable recovery post-disaster, though, following it is not always so simple. Some places grow much faster than anticipated. In Curaçao, for example, where Zapata worked on the carrying capacity of the island’s tourism in the years following extreme flooding from 2010’s Hurricane Tomas, it took only two years for the number of visitors to arrive that they expected at the end of five years, “causing, of course, infrastructure pressure but also societal pressure” in sectors like the housing market, she says. “They have to handle their growth now or they’re going to have more problems.” As Ramkumar puts it, “It’s like water gushing down a mountain. You’ve got to build the banks of the river so that the water doesn’t go flood the whole place and nobody wins.” It’s a lesson in sustainability that Hawaii is taking to heart. “Maui’s approach to tourism is evolving,” says Kaʻanāʻanā. “We’re promoting and supporting programs that amplify community voices and engage visitors in cultural preservation and environmental protection, such as tree-planting initiatives and cultural education. Community input and environmental considerations will continue to shape Maui’s tourism future.” Beachfront homes burned in Malibu, California, as wildfires caused damage and loss throughout the Los Angeles region in January 2025. Mario Tama/Getty Images Reimagining the types of experiences available to visitors and establishing guidelines for them can also help destinations to weed out (some) of those who have little interest in respecting the places and people they visit. Increasingly, says Ramkumar, “there is a whole class of tourists who are willing to go to a place just to help others because that experience of giving is enriching in itself.” Individual travelers have a responsibility to consider their own carbon footprint and the types of businesses and tours they are willing to invest in. If, according to Sustainable Travel International’s carbon calculator, it produces 1.01 metric tons of carbon dioxide to fly round-trip from San Francisco to Maui, each visitor adds to the island’s ecological fragility unless they also do things like offset their emissions, support carbon-neutral businesses and contribute through voluntourism. Currently, visitors to Maui can assist in restoring and preserving the island’s cultural and archaeological sites with Maui Cultural Lands or participate in cleanup events and invasive species removal with Malama Maui Nui. Those headed to Asheville can help with debris removal and rebuilding projects through All Hands and Hearts and the United Way of Asheville and Buncombe County, while Los Angeles visitors can volunteer with L.A. Works to repair homes, assemble food packages and organize clothes for survivors. “Anywhere we go we should leave the places better than how we found them,” says Zapata. Isley in Asheville agrees. Locals hope “visitors and travelers take to heart where they are visiting and how they are visiting,” she says. “Going from recovery to revival, the grit and the guts of Appalachia has always been there, and I think that’s just shining brighter after the storm.” Planning Your Next Trip? Explore great travel deals A Note to our Readers Smithsonian magazine participates in affiliate link advertising programs. If you purchase an item through these links, we receive a commission.

Places like Maui and Asheville, North Carolina, rebuilding after wildfires and hurricanes, are doing so with a mind to sustainable tourism

Destinations Hit by Natural Disasters Need Tourists Back—but Maybe Not in the Same Way as Before

Places like Maui and Asheville, North Carolina, rebuilding after wildfires and hurricanes, are doing so with a mind to sustainable tourism

Shoshi Parks - History Correspondent

Kaanapali Beach
People gather on Kaanapali Beach, a popular tourist destination near Lahaina, Hawaii, in August 2024. Mario Tama/Getty Images

When wildfires engulfed the Hawaiian island of Maui’s historic downtown Lahaina in August 2023, Kohola Brewery was caught in their flames. The facility and taproom were completely destroyed, along with the core of the town’s Front Street.

It took the beer’s producers only five months to begin brewing again—this time with borrowed equipment and space at Kona Brewing Hawaii. But returning to Lahaina to rebuild was out of the question. Instead, they opened a new taproom in Wailea about 30 miles from the original, “a pivot to brick-and-mortar” that allowed them to serve food for the first time but not to resume brewing on their own, says Isaac Bancaco, vice president of operations at Kohola.

In its original form, the brewery’s taproom did business with the nearly three million tourists who visited Maui each year. Last year, that number was down by almost a quarter. The Kohola Brewery taproom and restaurant is one of many businesses ready to welcome visitors back to Maui—but are they ready to return?

Lahaina wildfire August 2023
Buildings smolder days after a wildfire gutted Lahaina in August 2023. Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

The planet is at a climate crossroads. Natural disasters are increasing so much in frequency and intensity that even places once believed to be insulated from the worst of what’s to come—the cool, wet Pacific Northwest, for example—are experiencing greater effects from wildfire, storms, flooding, landslides and drought.

These events devastate local communities not just as the tragedy unfolds but in its aftermath. Those with diverse economies can be somewhat nimble in their recovery. Houston, which was devastated by Hurricane Harvey in 2017, bounced back more quickly than expected because its economy was split among a wide variety of industries, including health care, aerospace, shipping, manufacturing and technology. Those sectors that couldn’t immediately resume business were balanced out by those that could.

But when a community is dependent on a single industry, rebuilding can be much harder. This is especially true when tourism is the primary—or in some cases the only—economic driver. “When the economy is very much reliant on one industry and that industry fails, it’s very vulnerable,” says Paloma Zapata, CEO of Sustainable Travel International, an organization working to help the global travel industry strengthen its climate resilience.

Asheville North Carolina flooding after Hurricane Helene
Heavy rains from Hurricane Helene caused record flooding and damage on September 28, 2024 in Asheville, North Carolina. Melissa Sue Gerrits/Getty Images

Tourism destinations hit by natural disasters need visitors in order for local people and businesses to survive. But important questions underlie tourists’ return: Is restoring the tourism status quo the best future for a destination that’s been impacted by natural disaster? Would it be better for local communities and environments if a pre-disaster form of tourism never returned at all?

The answer is complicated. “Typically, a destination that relies on tourism is not going to stop relying on tourism just because of a natural disaster,” says Zapata. But natural disasters can act as a pivot point for both overdeveloped places and tourists to re-evaluate the sustainability of their behavior. Destinations dependent on tourism need visitors to return, but “there needs to be a balance between economic development, conservation, community well-being and the visitor experience,” she continues.

In the United States alone, several popular tourism destinations are in varying stages of recovery following calamitous natural disasters. In August 2023, the fifth-deadliest wildland fire in U.S. history erupted on the Hawaiian island of Maui. High winds drove the flames from the hills to the sea, destroying more than 2,200 structures in and around the historic district of Lahaina, and taking more than 100 lives. In September 2024, the Blue Ridge Mountain town of Asheville, North Carolina, suffered extreme flooding due to Hurricane Helene, which dropped around 14 inches of rain40 percent of the city’s annual rainfall—in just three days. Mudslides and cresting rivers there destroyed around 2,300 structures. Then, this January, wildfires ripped across drought-affected brush and forestland in Los Angeles, destroying entire neighborhoods and causing an estimated $250 billion in damages.

Residents in Asheville arts district after Hurricane Helene
Residents of Asheville view damage to the Arts District downtown after Hurricane Helene. Melissa Sue Gerrits/Getty Images

These events are nothing short of catastrophic for local communities, but the way they are portrayed in the media often doesn’t fully reflect what’s happening on the ground, according to Victoria Isley, president and CEO of Explore Asheville. Disaster coverage creates “global impressions that are very difficult to combat,” she says, like the idea that local infrastructure no longer exists.

“There are many places, like downtown Asheville, that visibly look like nothing ever happened,” says Isley, six months after Helene. “The majority of our restaurants, breweries and music venues are open downtown, in South Asheville and in North Asheville. Almost all of our hotels are open. Our airport has been functional the entire time, and half of a brand-new terminal will open this summer.” Even many of the small mountain towns around Asheville that were hit hard by the storm—including Spruce Pine, for instance, which has one of the only mines on Earth for the high-purity quartz used in electronics, solar panels and the chips that power artificial intelligence—were back to work within weeks.

Still, in the months following Hurricane Helene, estimates that Asheville’s tourism industry would experience a 70 percent decline in the last quarter of 2024—a loss of more than $584 million in revenue—circulated through the news cycle. By the end of February 2025, it was actually the opposite that had occurred, with a 4 percent increase in visitors from pre-Helene numbers.

In Maui, while some of the island’s celebrity homeowners initially discouraged visitors from returning, the region was welcoming people back two months after the wildfires, says Kalani Kaʻanāʻanā, chief stewardship officer at the Hawaii Tourism Authority. Outside the core of historic Lahaina, which centered on the ocean-facing Front Street, the region today appears virtually untouched by the disaster, and “many Lahaina businesses have reopened or relocated,” Kaʻanāʻanā says.

Even so, the island has struggled to attract the same volume of visitors as it once did. The University of Hawaii Economic Research Organization predicts that Maui will have almost 400,000 fewer tourists in 2025 than the 2.97 million it received in 2022, and half a million fewer than pre-pandemic levels in 2019.

Kaanapali Beach 2
Maui will have almost 400,000 fewer tourists in 2025 than the 2.97 million it received in 2022. Mario Tama/Getty Images

“Lower visitor numbers continue to affect local businesses and, by extension, our communities,” continues Kaʻanāʻanā. With around 80 percent of the region’s economy rooted in tourism, the slow recovery has resulted in the need for many families to relocate to other islands or the continental U.S. just to survive. The entire Maui County, which includes the island of Maui and two neighboring islands with small populations, Molokai and Lanai, employs fewer than 20,000 people in its two second-largest industries, retail trade and health care and social assistance. Recent data indicates that while Maui’s health care, construction and educational services industries are slowly growing, they remain only a small fraction of the economy overall.

While economic diversification could help to build Maui’s resilience, the reality is that “usually tourism-dependent economies are dependent to tourism because they don’t have a choice,” says CB Ramkumar, vice chair of the Global Sustainable Tourism Council.

If visitors do not return, the entire community would collapse. Ironically, because tourism is a major driver of carbon emissions and human-caused climate change, restoring high numbers of visitors could also have a similarly negative impact on the community in the long run. It’s a “dual issue,” Ramkumar says.

It’s important for destinations to give serious thought to the kind of tourism they want back following a natural disaster, says Zapata. “There’s always going to be support from governments to ‘build back better,’ but most of the cost is going to come from the [business] owners’ pockets.” It’s unfortunately true that some of the infrastructural challenges hotels and other businesses face after a disaster are due to the corners they cut to keep costs to a minimum in the first place. “It’s going to take a big effort first with infrastructure, the opportunity to build more renewable energy sources and use more innovative materials, and also [with the type of tourists] you target,” Zapata continues.

In the Caribbean, for example, restoring mangrove swamps and relocating businesses unwisely established in their footprint is likely to make a destination more ecologically resilient and better able to withstand disasters in the future. “Looking at a higher-value, lower-impact model for any destination [while simultaneously] diversifying the economy are really the keys to being able to withstand when a natural disaster comes,” says Zapata.

Even when a destination has a plan for sustainable recovery post-disaster, though, following it is not always so simple. Some places grow much faster than anticipated. In Curaçao, for example, where Zapata worked on the carrying capacity of the island’s tourism in the years following extreme flooding from 2010’s Hurricane Tomas, it took only two years for the number of visitors to arrive that they expected at the end of five years, “causing, of course, infrastructure pressure but also societal pressure” in sectors like the housing market, she says. “They have to handle their growth now or they’re going to have more problems.”

As Ramkumar puts it, “It’s like water gushing down a mountain. You’ve got to build the banks of the river so that the water doesn’t go flood the whole place and nobody wins.”

It’s a lesson in sustainability that Hawaii is taking to heart. “Maui’s approach to tourism is evolving,” says Kaʻanāʻanā. “We’re promoting and supporting programs that amplify community voices and engage visitors in cultural preservation and environmental protection, such as tree-planting initiatives and cultural education. Community input and environmental considerations will continue to shape Maui’s tourism future.”

wildfire damage in Malibu
Beachfront homes burned in Malibu, California, as wildfires caused damage and loss throughout the Los Angeles region in January 2025. Mario Tama/Getty Images

Reimagining the types of experiences available to visitors and establishing guidelines for them can also help destinations to weed out (some) of those who have little interest in respecting the places and people they visit. Increasingly, says Ramkumar, “there is a whole class of tourists who are willing to go to a place just to help others because that experience of giving is enriching in itself.”

Individual travelers have a responsibility to consider their own carbon footprint and the types of businesses and tours they are willing to invest in. If, according to Sustainable Travel International’s carbon calculator, it produces 1.01 metric tons of carbon dioxide to fly round-trip from San Francisco to Maui, each visitor adds to the island’s ecological fragility unless they also do things like offset their emissions, support carbon-neutral businesses and contribute through voluntourism. Currently, visitors to Maui can assist in restoring and preserving the island’s cultural and archaeological sites with Maui Cultural Lands or participate in cleanup events and invasive species removal with Malama Maui Nui. Those headed to Asheville can help with debris removal and rebuilding projects through All Hands and Hearts and the United Way of Asheville and Buncombe County, while Los Angeles visitors can volunteer with L.A. Works to repair homes, assemble food packages and organize clothes for survivors.

“Anywhere we go we should leave the places better than how we found them,” says Zapata.

Isley in Asheville agrees. Locals hope “visitors and travelers take to heart where they are visiting and how they are visiting,” she says. “Going from recovery to revival, the grit and the guts of Appalachia has always been there, and I think that’s just shining brighter after the storm.”

Planning Your Next Trip?

Explore great travel deals

A Note to our Readers Smithsonian magazine participates in affiliate link advertising programs. If you purchase an item through these links, we receive a commission.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Costa Rica Pulls Out of UN 2030 Agenda, Shocks Environmentalists

President Rodrigo Chaves has withdrawn Costa Rica’s support for the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda, stripping institutional funding and public interest status from the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), according to an extraordinary decree published in the official gazette on April 2, 2025. The move, if enacted, would mark a dramatic shift for a nation long hailed […] The post Costa Rica Pulls Out of UN 2030 Agenda, Shocks Environmentalists appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

President Rodrigo Chaves has withdrawn Costa Rica’s support for the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda, stripping institutional funding and public interest status from the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), according to an extraordinary decree published in the official gazette on April 2, 2025. The move, if enacted, would mark a dramatic shift for a nation long hailed as a global leader in sustainability. The 2030 Agenda, adopted by UN member states in 2015, aims to eradicate poverty, combat climate change, and ensure human rights by 2030. Costa Rica’s past alignment with these goals—evident in its renewable energy achievements and biodiversity protections—makes this decision a potential turning point. Environmental group Bloque Verde condemned the withdrawal, calling it an “ecocidal policy” that undermines Costa Rica’s credibility. With the country set to co-host the Third UN Conference on the Ocean in June 2025, the group questioned, “With what legitimacy can the government lead a summit rooted in SDG 14, which protects marine life?” They cited recent controversies—such as a shark fin transfer scandal, weakened oversight in the Gandoca-Manzanillo Refuge, and raised pesticide limits in drinking water—as evidence of environmental backsliding under Chaves. The decision could ripple internationally, dimming Costa Rica’s image as an ecological pioneer and jeopardizing cooperation projects tied to the SDGs. A UN official, speaking anonymously, expressed “deep concern” about the timing, given the ocean summit’s reliance on global unity. Chaves’s administration has not detailed its reasoning, though analysts speculate budget constraints or a push for national sovereignty may be factors. Opposition leaders have yet to respond formally, but public debate is intensifying. Bloque Verde urged the government to reverse course, pleading, “Protect our forests, rivers, and people—only then can we defend our oceans. The post Costa Rica Pulls Out of UN 2030 Agenda, Shocks Environmentalists appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

JP Morgan’s ‘sustainable’ funds invested £200m in mining giant Glencore

Backing of Glencore angers campaigners who have highlighted firm’s environmental breaches in South AfricaOne of the world’s biggest banks, JP Morgan, has promoted ­environmental and “sustainable” funds to customers which have invested more than £200m in the mining giant Glencore, it can be revealed.Ethical investing has become big business for JP Morgan and other financial giants, with worldwide “sustainable” investing expected to surpass $40tn by 2030. But the industry now faces scrutiny over the rules around investments focusing on environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues. Continue reading...

One of the world’s biggest banks, JP Morgan, has promoted ­environmental and “sustainable” funds to customers which have invested more than £200m in the mining giant Glencore, it can be revealed.Ethical investing has become big business for JP Morgan and other financial giants, with worldwide “sustainable” investing expected to surpass $40tn by 2030. But the industry now faces scrutiny over the rules around investments focusing on environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues.Several of JP Morgan’s “sustainable” funds are investing in the London-listed commodity trader Glencore, which is under fire for its coal operations in South Africa, an investigation by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, the news website Voxeurop and the Daily Maverick, an online South African news publication, has revealed.JP Morgan’s asset management arm has more than 500 funds promoted as environmental or sustainable investments, ranging from a climate change solutions fund to a global healthcare fund. Under current rules, some of these may still hold investments in firms criticised for environmentally damaging practices.For many of its funds that are promoted as sustainable, JP Morgan specifies that at least 51% of investments must have positive environmental and/or social characteristics. The remaining 49% can be invested without such restrictions.Jakob Thomä, chief executive of ­climate thinktank Theia Finance Labs, said: “The overwhelming majority of retail investors, in my view, would feel misled if they knew that was the ­criteria for labelling something as a sustainable fund.”He said some sustainable funds may be breaking EU law, which says anything that “deceives or is likely to deceive the average consumer” is misleading commercial practice.A view of a coal-fired power station from the town of Phola, which is situated in Mpumalanga’s coal belt in South Africa. Photograph: Julia Evans/Daily MaverickJP Morgan’s sustainable funds also exclude companies that make more than 20% of revenues from thermal coal extraction. Despite being one of the world’s biggest coal companies, Glencore slips under this threshold in terms of revenues. In terms of actual profit, however, coal mining accounts for nearly half.The investments have angered campaigners who have highlighted environmental breaches in Glencore’s operation in South Africa’s coal belt. Glencore runs three mining complexes around the mining town of Phola, Mpumalanga, which is about 70 miles east of Johannesburg. According to a recent South African government report, obtained via a freedom of information request, one of those has been breaking environmental laws since 2017.The company’s Tweefontein coalmine has been accused by the South African water and sanitation department of several breaches including seriously contaminating a local river, storing hazardous waste in open containers and failing to fix broken walls at a sewage facility.Residents at Phola say they don’t trust the local water supply. Daisy Tshabangu, 52, moved to Phola because her family worked at the coal-fired power station that looms on the horizon. “Most of the people, when they do drink this water they get stomach aches,” she said.Phola residents say they feel abandoned by the companies whose mines dominate the landscape. Unemployment is high and infrastructure is crumbling.“We don’t benefit from the mines,” said Tshabangu. “There’s a lot we don’t have but we are surrounded by mines. So to us, it seems like we are being sidelined as a community.”Daisy Tshabangu lives in Phola, which is surrounded by three mining complexes run by Glencore. She says her community feels like it is being sidelined. Photograph: Julia Evans/Daily MaverickGlencore says that its water treatment plant supplies clean water to Phola as part of its “commitment to sustainable development”. It says it is not directly responsible for the overall supply of water and cannot comment on claims about water quality. It says it has had no complaints via a grievance procedure regarding the supply of water.Despite repeated requests to clean up its operations, the Tweefontein mine was still in breach of multiple environmental laws as recently as November 2023, an inspection report by the South African water and sanitation department reveals. Campaigners question why the company’s licence has not been revoked.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“Our regulators are often compromised and give in to the pressure of the coal mining industry. [They] do not have the political will to enforce our laws,” said Mariette Liefferink, chief executive of the Federation for a Sustainable Environment, a local campaign group.Angered that finance promoted as sustainable is supporting Glencore, Liefferink wrote to the former Labour MP Chuka Umunna in November last year about the environmental risk, ecological degradation and pollution associated with JP Morgan’s investments in Glencore. Umunna is now head of sustainable solutions and head of green economy for investment banking at JP Morgan. However, the Observer understands that the former shadow secretary of state for business, who did not respond to the letter, is involved only in the activities of the investment bank, and is not involved in and does not have oversight over the sustainable policies of the asset management arm.Liefferink urged the bank to review its investments in Glencore due to the company’s alleged breaking of environmental laws, as well as the pollution, wildlife damage and environmental risk its activities were causing. Liefferink’s correspondence highlighted two JP Morgan funds with ESG in their name, both of which had millions of pounds invested in Glencore.After a rapid rise in popularity, ESG investing is the subject of increasing scrutiny around the world. Regulators are trying to settle on what it means, and create labels that are easy for investors to understand.The Mpumalanga mines form a small part of Glencore’s global operations. It is the world’s fifth biggest coal miner, selling more than 100m tonnes in 2023 – including from the Cerrejón mine in Colombia where there have been allegations of human rights abuses and environmental destruction.Glencore says it is committed to responsible engagement and the wellbeing of all workers, and that mitigating negative impacts of its mines is imperative to building trust with local communities, which it maintains through ethical and responsible business practices. The company said the water supply in Phola is a municipal service, but that it contributes to a reservoir that also receives water from other sources. It said it monitors the quality of the water provided by its treatment plant on a weekly basis to ensure it is suitable for consumption.The company said it has been taking action in response to Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS) inspections since 2017 and that incidents identified in the 2023 audit have been addressed.“Our industrial assets are closely linked to the communities and regions where they operate. We aim to avoid harm to people from our activities, respect human rights, and establish and maintain trusting relationships with stakeholders, through ethical and responsible business practices,” the company said.JP Morgan declined to comment.This investigation was supported by the Bertha Challenge fellowship; Stefano Valentino is a 2024 Bertha Challenge Fellow. Additional reporting by Ed Stoddard

One senator’s lonely quest to make the farm bill more sustainable

For years, Debbie Stabenow fought for environmentally friendly agricultural policy. She retired with mixed results.

When Debbie Stabenow retired from Congress last year, she ended a 28-year run of advocating at the federal level for sustainable food systems.  The Democrat from Michigan, who served four terms in the Senate after two terms in the House of Representatives, is fond of saying, “You don’t have an economy unless somebody makes something and somebody grows something.” Over the course of her career, she proved to be a skilled negotiator — securing incremental, bipartisan changes to the nation’s farm bill, the legislative package that defines United States agricultural policy roughly every five years. Stabenow secured funding for urban agriculture, farmers markets, and growers of so-called specialty crops — such as tree nuts, fruits, and vegetables — which are defined in opposition to commodity crops like soybeans and wheat. In her final years in Congress, she argued that the farm bill should evolve to include more climate solutions. Stabenow pushed to keep or expand funding for programs that incentivized farmers to adopt land practices that help reduce emissions, like planting cover crops in fields during the off-season and restoring wetlands on their property. But last year, she found that just the mention of the term “climate” caused talks to fall apart. “I could not get my counterpart to negotiate,” Stabenow told Grist at a recent conference in northern Michigan, referring to John Boozman, the Republican senator from Arkansas who worked alongside her in the upper chamber’s agricultural committee. “Unfortunately, the term ‘climate’ has been so polarizing,” she added. (A representative for Boozman declined to comment for this article.)  Stabenow’s career — the ways she managed to expand the farm bill and the ways she couldn’t — speaks to how difficult it has become for lawmakers to fund climate initiatives. Now, she warns that those elected to the 119th Congress should be wary of attempts to roll back environmental progress. Read Next Climate takes its toll on the ‘cherry capital of the world’ Ayurella Horn-Muller & Izzy Ross The U.S. agricultural sector contributes about 10 percent of the nation’s climate-warming emissions, according to an estimate from the Environmental Protection Agency. Just over half of those emissions come from the way farms manage agricultural soils, which can release nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere. Livestock — and the manure they produce, depending on how it’s stored — are also major sources of methane emissions on farms.  Historically, most farm bills have focused neither on reducing agricultural emissions nor on the impacts of the climate crisis on farms, such as the way severe storms, drought, and extreme heat impact crop production. But in recent years, there have been more discussions in Congress and among farmers about whether and how the farm bill should adapt to address these dynamics.  “We’ve seen increased impacts since the last farm bill was passed,” said Mike Lavender, policy director at the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, which advocates for equitable food systems. He added that “farmers know” when their work is being hampered by climate change.  Today, there’s still no new farm bill, even though it’s more than a year overdue. Last year, Congress extended the 2018 farm bill until September 2025, along with around $31 billion in aid for farmers.  Passing the omnibus bill, which encompasses programs as diverse as food stamps, rural economic development, and ethanol, didn’t always take this long. Stabenow worked on five farm bills and during that time was able to increase funding and create programs for U.S. farmers big and small. “I had a lot of clout because of my seniority in chairing the Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee,” said Stabenow, who served two stints as chair and was the ranking Democrat on that Senate committee from 2015 to 2021. “So I could block and tackle.” When Democrats in Congress wrote the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, which would wind up being the biggest climate spending bill in history, Stabenow fought to include almost $40 billion in funding for climate-smart agriculture, forestry and rural energy programs. The money for climate-smart agriculture would prove to be particularly controversial. The term refers to practices that are believed to reduce emissions or sequester carbon on farms, but some groups and lawmakers argue the category is too broad to actually be meaningful. Still, in her final months in Congress, Stabenow sought to secure future funding for conservation programs and climate-smart agriculture, submitting a roughly 1,400-page draft resolution of the farm bill to the Senate, even though it had virtually no chance of passing.  Stabenow’s draft text included a provision that would have ensured leftover money for climate-smart agricultural practices from the Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA, would be included in the next farm bill. This became one of the main irreconcilable differences between her and her Republican counterparts in the House and Senate.  Stabenow said it was important to name climate change in these discussions and explain why reducing emissions matters. Climate change is wreaking havoc on farmers: For instance, cherry orchards in Michigan have recently struggled with unseasonably warm and wet conditions. On the East Coast, farmers dealt with unprecedented drought and wildfires this past fall, which most in the region had never before encountered. “When discussing policy, we need to connect the dots,” she said in an email to Grist. Despite staunch gridlock in Congress, Stabenow insists that policies aiming to curb emissions from agricultural lands are common-sense. “When you talk to people about conservation programs and keeping carbon in the soil and protecting our land and our water from runoff with pesticides and so on, farmers all support that,” she said. “They are all doing these practices.” Indeed, according to the American Farm Bureau, a leading industry advocacy group, U.S. farmers have increased their use of cover crops by 75 percent over the past 10 years while also increasing adoption of other practices that trim emissions.  However, some in the industry worry that allocating money exclusively for climate programs excludes farmers from directing it to other important uses. The Republican House agriculture committee chair, Glenn Thompson of Pennsylvania, wrote in an op-ed last year that farmers should have more flexibility in how to use federal dollars. Environmental groups, meanwhile, have questioned the effectiveness of certain programs deemed “climate-smart” under the IRA, such as spending on methane digesters, which create fuel out of animal manure.  Cattle at a dairy farm in Porterville, California, in December 2024. David Swanson / AFP / Getty Images Even before she advocated to extend the IRA’s climate-smart spending, Stabenow pushed for policies that boosted food security and environmental conservation. Though not explicitly labeled as climate solutions, these provisions help make farms and our food system more resilient against shocks from extreme weather and other impacts of global warming. The 2018 farm bill, which Stabenow led negotiations for, provided $428 billion over its first five years, with 7 percent of that total aimed at conservation programs.  A major focus of Stabenow’s career was increasing support for specialty crops — those fruits, vegetables, herbs, and tree nuts — through farm bill programs. These make up a big chunk of U.S. crop production value — up a quarter in 2020, according to the U.S. Agriculture Department — but it took until 2008 for Congress to specifically include research and funding for them in the farm bill. Specialty crop growers have benefitted from Stabenow’s work to ensure they had better access to crop insurance and block grants, which in turn helps them address disease and volatile weather, said Jamie Clover Adams, the executive director of the Michigan Asparagus Advisory Board.   Support for specialty crops is not explicitly a climate solution. However, experts say that diversifying our food system can boost resilience against extreme weather. Additionally, certain land management practices used in specialty crop farming can help lessen its impact on the environment; cover crops planted in barren fields during the fall and winter, for example, help remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it in the soil. Rotating the kinds of crops grown on specialty farms can also improve soil health, which in turn makes crops more resilient to climate impacts. It made sense for Stabenow to take up the mantle for specialty crops: Michigan, which is one of the country’s most agriculturally diverse states, produces around 300 products and is a leading grower of fruits and vegetables like tart cherries and asparagus. (In her farewell speech to Congress, Stabenow said, “I have frequently said that you can see Michigan on every page of the farm bills I have written.”) Her work on food and agricultural policy was often popular across party lines: She won endorsements from industry groups like the Michigan Farm Bureau, which often supports Republicans. In fact, once Stabenow’s seat was vacant, the Michigan Farm Bureau endorsed Republican candidate Mike Rogers as her replacement. (The race was narrowly won by Democrat Elissa Slotkin.)  Senator Debbie Stabenow greets witnesses ahead of a hearing to examine the farm bill in February 2023 in Washington, D.C. Kent Nishimura / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images Stabenow’s commitment to a wide variety of agriculture is even visible on the walls of the Senate agriculture committee room in Washington, D.C., where portraits of committee chairs hang. Stabenow’s portrait is filled with asparagus, cucumbers, corn, pumpkins, peppers, carrots, turnips, potatoes, peaches, apples, blueberries, tart cherries, and geranium flowers, as well as dairy cows in the background. “Even when she’s not there, it’s going to be a constant reminder that we exist and that we are part of farm policy,” said Adams of the Michigan Asparagus Advisory Board.  It was her commitment to specialty crop farmers that made Stabenow widely known and respected by advocates of sustainable food systems. (She’s been called the “specialty crop queen” by agriculture industry leaders.) Her work on past farm bills showed that investment in one type of agriculture “doesn’t have to be to the detriment of other types of farming,” said Lavender, from the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.  After Stabenow’s retirement, fellow Democrats on the committee lauded her work on climate policy in agriculture. She “leaves behind an impactful legacy from her work as a champion for nutrition, local food systems, and conservation,” said Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey in an email.  But Stabenow’s interest in expanding the scope of the farm bill also sparked criticism from those who believed she did not do enough to protect commodity farmers, such as corn, soy, and cotton growers. In November 2024, when she released the text of her draft farm bill, Boozman called it “insulting.” The two lawmakers were split on a number of key issues — like how much funding should go towards conservation programs and food assistance programs. Boozman, now the Senate agriculture committee chair, has repeatedly said efforts should be focused squarely on securing better economic outlooks for U.S. farmers.  In early February, he invited farmers to share stories of recent financial hardship with the Senate agriculture committee. One of them said, “I can say without a doubt that it was the most difficult year financially that we have endured so far. This year, I’m even more worried about what is to come.”  Farmers have indeed been hit by declining profits for two years in a row. Research shows severe weather is at least part of the reason why. For her part, Stabenow hopes lawmakers will continue supporting small, diverse farming operations — while pushing for climate and conservation.  “Conservation practices in general are a win-win, because it’s about keeping carbon in the soil, about keeping soil on the land and not running off into lakes and streams,” she said. “Focusing on what we call climate-smart conservation is really just doubling down on those things that are most effective at being able to capture carbon.” This story was originally published by Grist with the headline One senator’s lonely quest to make the farm bill more sustainable on Feb 27, 2025.

Eat Less Beef. Eat More Ostrich?

Ostrich is touted as a more sustainable red meat that tastes just like beef.

A few months ago, I found myself in an unexpected conversation with a woman whose husband raises cattle in Missouri. She, however, had recently raised and butchered an ostrich for meat. It’s more sustainable, she told me. Sure, I nodded along, beef is singularly terrible for the planet. And ostrich is a red meat, she added. “I don’t taste any difference between it and beef.” Really? Now I was intrigued, if skeptical—which is, long story short, how my family ended up eating ostrich at this year’s Christmas dinner.I eat meat, including beef, and I enjoy indulging in a holiday prime rib, but I also feel somewhat conflicted about it. Beef is far worse for the environment than virtually any other protein; pound for pound, it is responsible for more than twice the greenhouse-gas emissions of pork, nearly four times those of chicken, and more than 13 times those of beans. This discrepancy is largely biological: Cows require a lot of land, and they are ruminants, whose digestive systems rely on microbes that produce huge quantities of the potent greenhouse gas methane. A single cow can belch out 220 pounds of methane a year.The unique awfulness of beef’s climate impact has inspired a cottage industry of takes imploring Americans to consider other proteins in its stead: chicken, fish, pork, beans. These alternatives all have their own drawbacks. When it comes to animal welfare, for example, hundreds of chickens or fish would have to be slaughtered to feed as many people as one cow. Meanwhile, pigs are especially intelligent, and conventional means of farming them are especially cruel. And beans, I’m sorry, simply are not as delicious.So, ostrich? At first glance, ostrich didn’t seem the most climate-friendly option (beans), the most ethical (beans again), or the tastiest (pork, in my personal opinion). But could ostrich be good enough in all of these categories, an acceptable if surprising solution to Americans’ love of too much red meat? At the very least, I wondered if ostrich might be deserving of more attention than we give to it right now, which is approximately zero.You probably won’t be shocked to hear that the literature on ostrich meat’s climate impact is rather thin. Still, in South Africa, “the world leader in the production of ostriches,” government economists in 2020 released a report suggesting that greenhouse-gas emissions from ostrich meat were just slightly higher than chicken’s—so, much, much less than beef’s. And in Switzerland, biologists who put ostriches in respiratory chambers confirmed their methane emissions to be on par with those of nonruminant mammals such as pigs—so, again, much, much less than cows’.But Marcus Clauss, an author of the latter study, who specializes in the digestive physiology of animals at the University of Zurich, cautioned me against focusing exclusively on methane. Methane is a particularly potent greenhouse gas, but it is just one of several. Carbon dioxide is the other big contributor to global warming, and a complete assessment of ostrich meat’s greenhouse-gas footprint needs to include the carbon dioxide released by every input, including the fertilizer, pesticides, and soil additives that went into growing ostrich feed.This is where the comparisons get more complicated. Cattle—even corn-fed ones—tend to spend much of their life on pasture eating grass, which leads to a lot of methane burps, but growing that grass is not carbon intensive. In contrast, chicken feed is made up of corn and soybeans, whose fertilizer, pesticides, and soil additives all rack up carbon-dioxide emissions. Ostrich feed appears similar, containing alfalfa, wheat, and soybeans. The climate impact of an animal’s feed are important contributions in its total greenhouse-gas emissions, says Ermias Kebreab, an animal scientist at  UC Davis who has extensively studied livestock emissions. He hasn’t calculated ostrich emissions specifically—few researchers have—but the more I looked into the emissions associated with ostrich feed, the murkier the story became.Two other ostrich studies, from northwest Spain and from a province in western Iran, indeed found feed to be a major factor in the meat’s climate impact. But these reports also contradicted others: In Spain, for instance, the global-warming potential from ostrich meat was found to be higher than that of beef or pork—but beef was also essentially no worse than pork.“Really, none of the [studies] on ostrich look credible to me. They all give odd numbers,” says Joseph Poore, the director of the Oxford Martin Programme on Food Sustainability, which runs the HESTIA platform aimed at standardizing environmental-impact data from food. “Maybe this is something we will do with HESTIA soon,” Poore continued in his email, “but we are not there yet …” (His ellipses suggested to me that ostrich might not be a top priority.)The truth is, greenhouse-gas emissions from food are sensitive to the exact mode of production, which vary country to country, region to region, and even farm to farm. And any analysis is only as good as the quality of the data that go into it. I couldn’t find any peer-reviewed studies of American farms raising the ostrich meat I could actually buy. Ultimately, my journey down the rabbit hole of ostrich emissions convinced me that parsing the relative virtues of different types of meat might be beside the point. “Just eat whatever meat you want but cut back to 20 percent,” suggests Brian Kateman, a co-founder of the Reducetarian Foundation, which advocates eating, well, less meat. (Other activists, of course, are more absolutist.) Still, “eat less meat” is an adage easier to say than to implement. The challenge, Clauss said, is, “any measure that you would instigate to make meat rarer will make it more of a status symbol than it already is.”I thought about his words over Christmas dinner, the kind of celebration that many Americans feel is incomplete without a fancy roast. By then, I had, out of curiosity, ordered an ostrich filet (billed as tasting like a lean steak) and an ostrich wing (like a beef rib), which I persuaded my in-laws to put on the table. At more than $25 a pound for the filet, the bird cost as much as a prime cut of beef.Ostrich has none of the strong or gamey flavors that people can find off-putting, but it is quite lean. I pan-seared the filet with a generous pat of butter, garlic, and thyme. The rosy interior and caramelized crust did perfectly resemble steak. But perhaps because I did not taste the ostrich blind—apologies to the scientific method—I found the flavor still redolent of poultry, if richer and meatier. Not bad, but not exactly beefy. “I wouldn’t think it’s beef,” concluded my brother-in-law, who had been persuaded to smoke the ostrich wing alongside his usual Christmas prime rib. The wing reminded me most of a Renaissance Fair turkey leg; a leftover sandwich I fixed up the next day, though, would have passed as a perfectly acceptable brisket sandwich.I wouldn’t mind having ostrich again, but the price puts it out of reach for weeknight meals, when I can easily be eating beans anyways. At Christmas, I expect my in-laws will stick with the prime rib, streaked through as it is with warm fat and nostalgia.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.