I recently wrote a paper for a Climate Law class. I wanted to write about invasive species, as I find this to be intriguing. The consequences of cultural exchange, global trade, and colonialism are another sort of devastating conquest, an ecological invasion. This is an old problem, dating back to ancient times, and yet, it appears to be even more of an issue lately. I wanted to study this in depth. Has climate change played a role in making invasive species more prevalent, and more dangerous? Below is my abstract, followed by a summary of my paper.

Abstract: Invasive species have been a harmful issue to both ecosystems and economies for hundreds of years. Invasives can both take advantage of and cause stress to environments. Climate change is one of the biggest stressors to ecosystems in the last 30 years and has been accelerating invasive species behavior, exasperating the issue. It became clear, through research, that many of the goals for combating invasives mirror those of combating climate change. This is good news, as policy can be built together that will solve both issues.

According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), invasive species and climate change are two of the four driving forces behind biodiversity loss. Since climate change and invasive species population surges have been linked, both driving forces, as described by the USDA, can be seen as one larger connected driving force. This paper will explore this idea and analyze the legal underpinnings of invasive species regulation and determine if United States law is adequate to meet this challenge to our ecosystems and reliant economies during this climate change crisis.

Climate Change, while not a new phenomenon, is at the moment an important global issue. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) not only specifies that climate change effects are causing consequences right now in water, energy, transportation, agriculture, and human health, but ecosystems are also experiencing shifts in seasonal timing due to unusually warmer summer seasons and shorter, warmer autumn and winter seasons.

Warmer seasons make extreme heat waves more likely. Studies in 2018 concluded the likelihood of an extreme heat wave will increase from 1 every 20 years to 1 in 4 by 2050. Winters, by comparison, will continue to warm, and produce up to 12 times fewer extreme cold days. This temperature disparity will impact snowpacks, reduce soil moisture, and greatly increase severity of droughts. These droughts can then lead to perfect conditions for wildfires.

Not only are the seasons changing, and extreme weather becoming more likely, but the composition of ocean water has changed acid levels. This affects marine ecosystems. In addition, rising sea levels increases risk of shore erosion, and surges in salt content to inland waterways. This affects wetlands ecosystems.

All of this, due to manmade increases in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the ocean water acidity, the salt, the rise in temperatures, the increase in probability of extreme weather events, shifting in seasons all contributes to stress on ecosystems.

Ecosystem stress is discussed in a paper published by The American Naturalist. “The ecosystem-level distress syndrome is manifest through changes in nutrient cycling, productivity, the size of dominant species, species diversity, and a shift in species dominance to opportunistic shorter-lived forms [. . .] Inability to cope leads to further dysfunctions and, perhaps, to irreversible ecosystem breakdown" This paper was published in 1985, and included over harvesting, pollution, and extreme weather events as major contributors to ecosystem stress. No doubt, if this paper were published recently, climate change would be at the top of the list. Although climate change is absent, invasive species is on the paper’s list of known stressors.

Invasive Species are defined as being a non-native species introduced to an ecosystem with the ability to cause harm. Because the existing ecosystems are unfamiliar with the invading species, there are often no natural defenses ready to keep the balance, and control the populations and growth of these alien species. Instead, the new species contribute to system stress, ravage host food sources, outcompete similar species, and alter soil and water compositions.

Invasives can cause harm in three ways: biodiversity loss, disruptions to agriculture leading to food insecurity, and disruptions to infrastructure and sustainability which can harm economies and quality of life.

Biodiversity is key to sustainable ecosystems. Why is this important to people? Ecosystems are not limited to Natural systems. Biodiversity affects economics, health, and water resources. Therefore, Biodiversity loss will impact poverty, hunger, health and water, and according to the UN, will undermine programs aimed at development targets to fight these issues globally.

A paper published in Nature Communications studied forest disturbance regimes in Europe. The paper concluded that even though wildfires and windfalls cause more damage, insect damage is on the rise and due to climate warming.

Stressors reduce ecosystems’ resiliency. Both climate warming and pest populations are high stressors. Ecosystems haven’t high resiliency with alien pests to begin with, and combined with climate stress, invasive insects and plants could damage systems beyond repair. Once established, these alien species then challenge the native ecosystem, creating more stress and more biodiversity loss.

In fact, according to another paper published in Nature, not only are insect pests positively affected by climate warming, “plant invasion is expected to be boosted by climate change” as well. Up until recently, invasive plant species were kept out of colder climates where frosts and temperate zone winters controlled spread. But warming has drastically altered the range for many plant and insect species.

Agriculture is tied to food security. Those "No Farms No Food" bumper stickers aren't just a clever slogan. Agriculture focuses on reproducing certain cultivars in large volumes for higher yields. Not only that, but we’ve spent thousands of years breeding crops with reduced defense systems, and higher tolerances of being planted in high volumes in close proximities.

The rise of industrial farming has made monocultures very popular. The monoculture, or single mass reproduced species, is beneficial to commercial agriculture. It is easier and cheaper to plant, manage, and harvest single varieties of a product, especially at the quantities required in an industrial business. By removing the complexities of a variety of cultivated species, the business is able to speed up the planting and harvesting process, identify and correct problems in the growth cycle earlier and quicker, and continue to utilize the same land repeatedly for the same product. There is no need for crop rotations, or resting acreage. There are drawbacks, and invasives pose a real threat to this model.

Infrastructure is more than roads. The Invasive Species Advisory Committee published a white paper in 2016 that studied invasives’ impacts on infrastructure. The paper highlights a few species that cause damage to four major categories of infrastructure: Power, Water, Housing, and Transportation. Some of the species highlighted include zebra mussels, which are so damaging, we created an entire Act of Congress to deal with it, a few other mussel species that behave very much like zebra mussels, giant land snails, comb jellyfish, and bufflegrass. These species alone contribute to billions of dollars in infrastructure damage and property loss.

Speaking of Acts of Congress, since this isn't a new phenomenon, what has the US government done for ecosystem protections, and non-indigenous species invasions?

The Lacey Act

The Lacey Act is the first federal mandate on environmental protection, drafted and introduced by John F Lacey, Republican from Iowa, and signed into law by President McKinley. Since its adoption, the act was amended several times since to incorporate more species. This act was originally a response to declines in game populations due to commercial hunting, and built to address this issue.

The original purpose of the act was to prohibit the poaching of certain species with the intent to trade or sell. The Lacey Act makes it unlawful to “import, export, sell, acquire, or purchase fish, wildlife, or plants that are taken, possessed, transported, or sold” in two ways: if in violation of U.S. or tribal law, or in violation of state or foreign law in interstate or foreign commerce. The act regulates in two ways. Not only does it protect native species from being moved within the country’s borders by limiting interstate trafficking, but it also regulates international trafficking.

Over time, this act has been used successfully to restrict the trafficking of wildlife across borders, mislabel imports and exports, and cut down on introducing harmful species. It can be used to limit the exotic pet trade, like pythons introduced to the Florida everglades. However, it does nothing to address accidental introductions, like the wooly adelgid, the emerald ash borer, or zebra mussels.

The National Invasive Species Act

In 1990, the Non-Indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act (NANPCA) was introduced into the House by Dennis M Hertel from Michigan’s 14^th district. Initially, the act gave powers to the Secretary of the Coast Guard to prevent further spread of aquatic nuisance pests into the Great Lakes region. In addition, it set up an Aquatic Nuisance Task Force to study ballast exchange, determine the effects of species introduction on the economy, and “determine need for controls”. The task force includes the Coast Guard and the EPA, but also Fish and Wildlife, NOAA, the Army Corp of Engineers, the Forest Service, the National Parks Service, and the Bureau of Land Management. The act also mandates the secretary to confer with the International Maritime Organization (IMO) for international cooperation.

The NANPCA was amended in 1996 as the National Invasive Species Act (NISA). This amendment included more aquatic species, and several other key waterways, including the Gulf of Mexico, the Chesapeake Bay, San Francisco Bay, and Hawaiian and Floridian inland waters.

NISA does have its drawbacks. Coordinating all those federal agencies into one cohesive group is difficult. Coast Guard funding for ballast control has to be reauthorized every year. But most importantly, NISA has no targets or goals to meet. There are no reduction goals, or a timeline, or even the appropriate population numbers for pest species. They release guidelines, but have no measurable policy objectives.

In contrast, the IMO does have certifiable standards of enforcement, with achievable benchmarks. But the US has decided to go it alone instead of join the IMO ballast exchange treaty, which has been signed by 78 other nations.

The Endangered Species Act

The Endangered Species Act was meant to replace the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966. The 1973 edition, signed by Nixon, combined the endangered list created by the 1966 act with comprehensive coverage for habitats, and ecosystems, with a much expanded definition of protected species and classes of fish and wildlife.

In addition, there were some other new features created within the act that changed pest management. The act created the Office of Pesticide Management within the EPA. This office uses the endangered species list, and protected ecosystems to determine pesticide label restrictions. The 1973 act, therefore, promotes integrated pest management approaches, and reduces reliance on chemical controls.

Legislation can only go so far. The law can only be as strong as its enforcement. This brings us to a brief history of Executive Orders pertaining to invasive species enforcement and management.

Executive Orders

In 1999, President Clinton signed Order #13112, which used the Environmental Policy Act of 1969, NISA, the Lacey Act and the Endangered Species Act to create the Invasive Species Council within the Cabinet. This body authorized the creation of the Invasive Species Monitoring Plan, and created federal policy authorizing action needed to identify, and respond to invasive species threats.

The Clinton Order revoked an earlier President Carter Order #11987. This earlier order attempted to address invasive species threats by ordering the DOI and USDA to "restrict introduction of exotic species". The order failed miserably, mostly due to the Reagan Administration failing to enforce it.

Barack Obama signed Order #13751 in 2016. This order, unlike Clinton's, bolstered the older order, strengthening it, instead of revoking it and attempting to rewrite it. The Obama Order clarified department duties, strengthened cooperation, and most importantly, included provisions for public safety, and climate change.

With both legislation and executive policy in sync, enforcement of the laws and policy need to be examined. What exactly are we doing to limit invasive species population growth?

Management Tactics: What are we Doing?

The prevailing wisdom for invasive species management is a three-fold response. To effectively manage pest populations, the vectors for entry must be closed, the pest population must be lowered to acceptable, healthy levels, and the environment must be rebuilt to withstand future infestations.

The legal backbone for the management plan and its initiatives appears to be strong enough combined to give the executive branch power to create the policy. A big drawback seems to be how these initiatives go from recommendations and coordinated plans to actual action on the ground. As discussed previously, Executive Order 13751 allows for the task force to set up a fund, and make recommendations on how that fund is used, but doesn’t actually have the power to fund the recommendations. The funding has to come through Congress, and budgets need to be reallocated every year, also as previously discussed in Coast Guard ballast water enforcement.

Real working policy on climate change is going to require investment, global cooperation, and longterm strategies across multiple departments and agencies. This sounds very much like the same requirements needed for invasive species management. The big difference between climate change policy and invasive species policy, is the government framework already exists. We already have coordinated, cooperating agencies mandated through executive orders and supported by settled legislation. The Invasive Species and Endangered Species Acts already give government authorities to adequately combat these problems, both domestically and with foreign cooperation.

So, then, what is missing? How can we best invest and act on these existing legal frameworks? Recently, Congress introduced a resolution pledging investment, restructuring, and longterm strategies aimed at combating climate change. This resolution should also include invasive species management.

What Exactly is The Green New Deal Anyway?

In 2019, the 116^th Congress submitted the Green New Deal in House Resolution 109. Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts, and House Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez introduced this resolution to Congress. The idea for a Green New Deal actually dates back to 2007 when Thomas Freidman coined the term as a solution to Climate Change. He realized that this issue could only be solved with money, effort, and upsetting of norms not seen since Roosevelt’s New Deal during the Depression. Since then, the term Green New Deal has been discussed by Barack Obama, Jill Stein, and Howie Hawkins. The Green New Deal was the centerpiece of Ocasio-Cortez’s run for the New York’s 14^th district. It is now a reality.

But what is in this resolution? The non-binding Green New Deal is not legislation. It acts more as a framework going forward, guiding principles and goals for future legislation and policy. The resolved contains four conclusions, containing goals for a sustainable future. It calls for achieving net-zero emissions, building economic security for all, building infrastructure to sustain a 21^st century economy, securing clean air, water, providing climate and community resiliency, and access to healthy food, nature, and a sustainable environment.

Some of the ways the Green New Deal will do this include investing in sustainable agriculture, restoring ecosystems through afforestation and land preservation, and working with the international community on climate change solutions. These are all also the goals of invasive species management. I propose adding invasive species management as a critical step in achieving Green New Deal aspirations.

Currently, in Europe, a similar strategy is being implemented. The European Union proposed its own Green Deal in 2019. Inside this deal is the Biodiversity Strategy. The targets for this strategy include reforestation, recreating free flowing rivers, and diversifying agriculture. There is also a provision for funding, calling for €20 billion a year earmarked for biodiversity, the same biodiversity threatened by invasive species. By collaborating with this European New Deal, the US can start to fulfill the international community outreach provision in the resolution. It is also a provision seemingly ignored in NISA.

By folding invasive species management into the Green New Deal, we can better realize our goals for harmonizing the many enforcement agencies participating in the Invasive Species Management Plan. Shoring up discrepancies between agencies like we saw between the EPA and Coast Guard with regards to ballast exchange will make it more difficult for agencies to issue exemptions, or make deals based on adjacent legislation. In fact, by collaborating with the EU Green Deal, the US can honor its pledge to collaborate with ballast water exchange by joining the IMO’s ballast water treaty. This would allow the Coast Guard to enforce NISA with real goals and targets, and universally approved systems and standards that align with the rest of the maritime community.

The Green New Deal will be able to provide funding for crucial habitat restoration projects, repairing areas damaged by invasives, and strengthening systems at risk of being overrun. Biodiversity is crucial to withstanding invasive species degradation, and is also at the heart of the Green New Deal. Ocasio-Cortez has proposed a Climate Corps, a plan to resurrect the FDR era Civilian Conservation Corp using Clinton’s AmeriCorps model, to provide the labor resources for rehabilitation projects. The newly proposed corps would hit many of the Green New Deal goals by providing jobs to complete projects aimed at rebuilding sustainable ecosystems, creating community resiliency, and building infrastructure for reliable clean energy.

In addition to civilian jobs corps, there have been, in recent Congresses, proposed legislation to bolster invasive species response. For example, Senator John Barrasso from Wyoming introduced the Federal Land Invasive Species Control, Prevention, and Management Act in 2017. This bill would have mandated the Secretary of the Interior to draw up plans and set management goals to curb invasive species populations on federal lands in coordination with states, and also set annual funding requirements.

Peter Welch, Congressman at Large from Vermont, introduced a bill recently to combine eradication efforts with forest restoration. The aptly named Invasive Species Prevention and Forest Restoration Act seeks to amend the Plant Protection Act, expand emergency authorities for invasive species management, and create grants for forest reclamation.

Both of these introduced pieces of legislation are seeking to strengthen environmental protections, introduced by members of both parties. Framed within the Green New Deal, this could be a chance to bring bi-partisan support to solving long lasting problems.

In Order to Summarize

To sum up, both climate change and invasive species create stress to planet-wide systems. Together they compound the stressors and make recovery much more difficult. They go hand in hand and are causing harm to both industry and quality of life. The estimated damage to infrastructure, economic yields, ecosystems, and contributions to flood and fire disasters is priced in the billions of dollars annually. My policy recommendations are to use the Green New Deal resolution and our already existing legal frameworks to harmonize our enforcement. Our agencies need clear goals, and benchmarks to hit with regards to enforcement. Regulation is meaningless without clear expectations.

Because climate change and invasives are so intertwined, policy must also be intertwined. Biodiversity, economic diversity, sustainability, reducing ecosystem stressors, and reducing economic harm are all goals of the Green New Deal and invasive species management, it makes sense to connect them.

I recommend planting Invasive Species Management firmly in the context of a system stressor influenced by climate change and empowered to do more damage because of climate change. If the Green New Deal recognizes invasive species management as a goal that will help reach other goals in the resolution, policy will benefit from already existing legal and enforcement frameworks created for invasive species management. Invasive task forces and management plans, after all, are blueprints for combating environmental stressors and have bipartisan support, which is something the Green New Deal desperately needs.

The Green New Deal resolution can provide long lasting funding packages allowing the new conservation core the ability to support sustainability programs and ecosystem rehabilitation. The philosophy of the IPM plan can be modified and implemented for climate change rehabilitation.

The Green New Deal can make joining the IMO’s ballast water treaty an executive priority. Both climate change and invasive species are global issues. As a global trade hub, the United States must put itself in a leadership role. The Green New Deal resolves to reach out for international support. Joining an already existing treaty meant to decrease global ecosystem harms seems like a good first step. The two predominant executive orders discussed above make invasive species management priorities across all executive branch departments and agencies. Joining a treaty resolved to uphold these same values should also be an executive priority in keeping with those already existing orders.