upworthy

climate crisis

Science

Ancient Hawaiian land system could transform sustainability's future—and it’s going viral

Welcome to the world of Ahupua’a.

Photo credit: Canva

Ancient Hawaiians were agricultural masters.

Switch to electric, use less water, recycle everything: in a time when fighting climate change seems insurmountable, an incredible solution is re-emerging from the ancient past—and it’s making major waves on TikTok. The ahupuaʻa system, Hawai’i’s approach to land management before the once-sovereign nation was colonized, is shocking the world as people discover its incredible potential to revolutionize sustainability—and potentially solve our modern climate crisis.


@ben_jamin_witu You cannot convince me we are more technologically advanced when ancient societies used nature as their technology and balanced themselves for thousands of years. VC: Hyperspective on IG. #landback #foodsoverignty #indigenous #wisdom #tiktok #fyp ♬ Lights Are On - Instrumental - Edith Whiskers

Meet Benjamin Kaimipono (@ben_jamin_witu), a Native Hawaiian (Kanaka ‘Ōiwi) TikTok creator whose videos—some original, some reposts—about Native Hawaiian life, practices, and history are creating a vitally important tapestry of a culture erased. One of the videos, a repost from @hyperspective on Instagram, (a boutique creative agency in Honolulu) depicts a simulated version of the Hawaiian ahupua’a system with the caption: “You cannot convince me we are more technologically advanced when ancient societies used nature as their technology and balanced themselves for thousands of years.”

The responses are filled with pride, respect, and wonder. One commenter wrote, “This is why land back is crucial today with global warming at an all-time high! Indigenous peoples are in tune with the land and know better than anyone else how to take care of it ✊🏽.” Others appreciated Kaimipono's sharing of Native Hawaiian knowledge, with one person writing: “This... is the proper use of the 'āina. live and learn and always Aloha 'Āina. Proud to be Hawaiian. Ha'aheo au. 😎🤙🏾” (According to Lāna'i Culture & Heritage Center, “'āina” is generally translated as “land” but directly means “that which feeds”; “Ha'aheo au” means “I am proud.”)

Another wrote:

“Hawaiians understood what it meant to live righteously off the land, and we're centuries ahead of their time with resource management. There's connection to the land is a key value. That's why native cultures always knew how to be sustainable with the resources they had, and didn't overuse or destroy it.”

Hawai'i, Native Hawaiians, land, sustainability, climate changeEach ahupua'a land parcel Photo credit: Canva


Why this ancient system works

The ahupua’a system, which thrived in Hawai’i for nearly a millennium between 1000 CE to 1848, wasn’t just smart—it was mathematic, geologic, and climatic genius. Picture this: 725 perfectly organized sections across eight islands. Each land parcel averages 5,678 and works in perfect harmony with nature. It was symbiosis at its finest: each ahupua’a operated like a self-contained utopia, combining forests, crops, and fishing zones, demonstrating a master class in resource management. This way, Hawaiians were able harness the power of the ecosystems around them while both supporting the 800,000 people living on the islands (and growing) and maintaining the land’s integrity.

In their seminal paper, “The Ahupua’a as a Traditional Hawaiian Resource Management Model for a Sustainable Coastal Environment,” researchers David W. Blane and Christopher Chung describe the ahupua’a as “a practical and rational approach to resources management that conforms with the existing geography and its resources rather than altering them for human convenience,” adding:

“…as you may already have surmised, the ahupua‘a means much more. The ahupua‘a embodies a unique relationship between the Hawaiian people and the land as well as the practical and rational approaches applied to insure the sustainability of the natural environment from overexploitation, pollution, and extinction.”


HHawai'i, Native Hawaiians, land, sustainability, climate changeawaiian landAn ahupua'a map.Wikipedia

Land management magic

This could get very scientific very fast, but here’s the simple version: ahupua’a were wedge-shaped land units that spanned from the mountains (mauka) down through the cultivated lowlands (mala) to the sea (makai). This way, each unit, each slice, had everything they needed to survive: forests to harvest wood from and collect bird feathers; irrigated agricultural terraces (lo’i) where they mostly grew taro, and dryland farms used to cultivate sweet potato (’uala), coconuts (niu), breadfruit (’ulu), and bananas (mai’a), just to name a few. Each ahupua’a also contained a coastal and marine area, where Hawaiians could fish and produce salt.

The leadership structure was also pure brilliance: each ahupua’a had its own chief (ali’i), overseer (konohiki), and priests (kahuna) who worked together, overseeing the administration of their land and ensuring that resources were used efficiently and sustainably. But perfection on this scale takes more than just good delegation; the ahupua’a leadership also incorporated important Native Hawaiian values like respect (aloha), cooperation (laulima), and stewardship (mālama) to ensure that everything remained balanced (pono). According to the North Shore Sustainable Communities Plan, here’s what made it all work:

  • When resources ran low, they immediately stopped harvesting to preserve resources.
  • They closed certain fishing areas seasonally so fish populations could bounce back.
  • Inter-ahupua’a trade was commonplace, so residents felt connected, and the system kept strong.

fruit, land, sustainability, Hawai'i, ahupua'aAhupua'a was a brilliant, sustainable practice.Thorsten

"The Hawaiians believed that the land, the sea, the clouds and all of nature had a certain interconnectedness, which is why they used all of the resources around them to reach the desired balance in life." - Nation of Hawaii

As we watch our food systems fall apart, coastlines disappear, and farmlands struggle, remember: it doesn’t have to be this way. Modern urban planners could take a page out of the ancient Native Hawaiian’s book, as they construct our future cities, structures, and systems. No one is asking for a 180 total rehaul or a return to 1848. But there are small things we can do. In Hawai’i, they’ve already brought a few of these principles back to life. They’re restoring traditional fishponds, reconnecting forests with their corresponding coastal areas, and empowering local communities to steward their own resources. This is a real, sustainable way forward. Or, as the BBC said: “The ahupuaʻa system of land development, in practice for more than 1,000 years, has the potential to show the world a new path to sustainability." Are you ready to be a part of that change?

From Your Site Articles
sustainability
Badge
AmazonSmile
AmazonSmile
Planet

Jeff Bezos's $10 billion climate change donation is a boon for the planet—and for billionaires

Over the weekend, Jeff Bezos—founder of Amazon and literally the richest man on Earth—announced on Instagram that he's launching the Bezos Earth Fund to fight climate change. More significantly, he's donating $10 billion to it as a start, stating, "This global initiative will fund scientists, activists, NGOs — any effort that offers a real possibility to help preserve and protect the natural world."

Before delving into the pros and cons of this donation, I'd like to acknowledge that Jeff Bezos's $10 billion pledge to tackle climate change is huge. Massively, stupendously huge. Since few of us are able to wrap our minds around how much money that really is, here's a comparison.

If you were to count $10 million at a dollar per second, it would take a little more than 115 days to count.

Change that to $10 billion, and it would take a little more than 115,000 days—or 316 years—to count.

Any time we're talking billions of dollars, we are in unfathomable-amount-of-money territory. By anyone's standards, $10 billion is an incredibly generous donation. As someone who has written about how little Jeff Bezos has given to charity in comparison to his wealth and rolled my eyes at people fawning over donations that are the equivalent of the average American giving pocket change, I give Bezos credit for loosening his giant-sized purse strings and putting his billions to use for humanity. Applause and kudos.

However...

We should all be wary about what the richest man in the world—or any multi-billionaire for that matter—does with unfathomable chunks of cash. The economics of the billionaire class impacts us all. Enormous wealth equals enormous power, so we shouldn't simply giving Bezos a thumbs up because he's offering up billions for a cause we all should care about.

Yes, this donation is historic and worthy of praise. And yes, we should also scrutinize it, unless we all feel comfortable letting a handful of elite billionaires wield their wealth in ways that will impact billions of people who have zero say in it.

THE PROS

Let's start with the positives here, because overall this donation is a good thing.

$10 billion is far more than Jeff Bezos has ever donated to anything, so yay him.

According to Vox, this pledge is approximately 7.5% of Bezos's net worth. Compared to the 0.1% he's donated in the past, this is a big step forward. (And yes, I'm one of those people who thinks billionaires owe the world a significant amount. No one becomes a billionaire without climbing on the shoulders of average people to get there, and

We need powerful people to take the climate crisis seriously, and this donation lends weight to it.

Jeff Bezos could throw $10 billion at any cause—medical research, hunger, education, what have you—but he's chosen climate change. That's a big deal. Not only will it hopefully help scientists and innovators do the research and development needed to solve environmental problems, but it also sends a message to the leaders of the world that this issue is where we need to be investing enormous resources. All of the world's problems will grow exponentially worse if we do not address the climate crisis now.

This amount of money might actually be enough to make a difference.

While it remains to be seen how this money will actually be used, Bezos's description of supporting scientists, activists, and NGOs that have proven to be effective sounds fantastic. Real solutions demand real funding, and $10 billion can go a long way toward innovative problem-solving.

THE CONS

While a generous donation overall a good thing, $10 billion is a powerful amount of money. Looking at it from various angles, there are some issues it brings up that we all should reflect on.

A handful of unelected billionaires shouldn't be in charge of the future of our planet.

I honestly find this donation as terrifying as it is exciting. I happen to be totally on board with mitigating climate change, but what if the world's richest man decided to throw his enormous wealth behind something nefarious? The fact that any one individual can put that much money behind anything that impacts the entire world should give us all pause. And especially on the climate change front, we need global, governmental action, not a single donor swooping in to save us all.

Such donations make it easier for the wealthy to argue against paying their fair share of taxes.

Let's not forget that Amazon itself not only paid $0 taxes in 2018, but actually received a $129 million federal tax refund from the government. Billionaires already pay less in taxes than the working class, and this kind of donation makes it far too easy to say, "See? It's okay for billionaires to not pay their share because they can be more generous with their money that way." Nevermind the fact that we're relying on the generosity of people who have already proven to be money hoarders.

The argument that governments can be inefficient with funds is totally legitimate. But is really better to have unelected individuals who have no responsibility or accountability toward the masses funding our global issues?

A wildly generous donation may tempt us to overlook problematic practices that made him a billionaire to begin with.

Many people have found it ironic that Bezos is putting all this money toward climate change when his own company has greatly contributed to it with its shipping practices. However, to its credit, Amazon has pledged to be carbon neutral by 2040, and has started by investing in 100,000 electric delivery vans. Bezos does seem sincere in wanting to tackle this issue.

But that doesn't negate the company's exploitation of its workers or its cutting off of long-standing employee health insurance after acquiring Whole Foods. The image of Amazon as a growing, monopolistic behemoth run by an uber-rich individual whose hundreds of thousands of employees relentlessly toil away, exponentially increasing his personal wealth is objectively accurate. A $10 billion donation doesn't change that.

Let's hope that this pledge really does the good that it has the potential for. But let's also maintain a healthy wariness about celebrating the power that a multibillionaire has to impact the world, for better or for worse.

From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
climate change
Planet

Yes, arsonists started some of Australia's fires. No, it doesn't mean climate change is fake

Photo by Issy Bailey on Unsplash

With vast swaths of Australia up in flames, debates are raging over what has caused the unprecedentedly intense fire season. And along with those debates, a slew of disinformation is swirling around the internet, clouding people's understanding of what's happening in the land down under.

Recent headlines about people being arrested on arson charges have only added confusion to the chaos. So let's clear a few things up.

The New South Wales police department has stated that 183 people, including 40 juveniles, have been arrested on fire-related charges during the 2019/2020 bush fire season. The police department noted:

  • 24 people have been charged over alleged deliberately-lit bushfires
  • 53 people have had legal actions for allegedly failing to comply with a total fire ban, and
  • 47 people have had legal actions for allegedly discarding a lighted cigarette or match on land.
New South Wales has been hit hard by the fires, as has the state of Victoria. However, a Victoria spokeswoman told The Guardian, "There is currently no intelligence to indicate that the fires in East Gippsland and the North East have been caused by arson or any other suspicious behavior."
However, media outlets ran with '183 people arrested for arson!' (or the more exaggerated '200 arsonists arrested!)' headlines, which bots and trolls and people who don't actually read articles started sharing as fact. Climate change deniers began pointing to such headlines as proof that claims of climate change contributing to the out-of-control fire season are bunk. Conspiracy theorists started claiming that environmentalists and eco-terrorists are the ones starting the fires as a way to push the big, bag climate change agenda.

Oof, people. Let's look at what we know.

RELATED: Climate change is not a partisan issue. So, let's stop treating it like one.

Yes, some fires in Australia were started by arsonists. That's actually not unusual. More fires appear to have been started by people being negligent—also not unusual. Fires in remote areas are most likely to be caused by lightning. In fact, there are nine causes of fire ignition recognized by fire investigators—and no, climate change is not one of them. But that doesn't mean climate change isn't a contributing factor.

What some people seem to be missing is that no one is claiming that climate change itself is igniting fires. That doesn't even make logical sense. Where climate change plays a role is in setting the stage for fires to start and spread easily. Intensely dry, hot conditions—which are exacerbated by global warming—create a virtual tinderbox out of the landscape.

Stefan Rahmstorf, climatologist and lead author of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fourth Assessment Report, says the bushfires have been exacerbated by two factors that have "well-established" links to climate change: drought and record heat. Last summer was the hottest on record in Australia, and the country has also seen record-low rainfall this season.

"Due to enhanced evaporation in warmer temperatures, the vegetation and the soils dry out more quickly," Rahmstorf told Time. "So even if the rainfall didn't change, just the warming in itself would already cause a drying of vegetation and therefore increased fire risk."

RELATED: Want to see stronger climate change policies? Elect more women as lawmakers

People pointing to the arson headlines seem desperate to downplay the role climate change is playing in the bushfires, but scientists aren't having it.

"There are now disingenuous efforts to downplay the clear role of climate change in worsening the intensity and severity of the Australian fires, or to blame 'arson' as a way to distract from the growing threat of climate change," Peter Gleick, climate scientist and co-founder of Pacific Institute in California, told Time. "These efforts should be called out for what they are: gross climate denial."

So yeah. Fires start for many reasons, including arson and negligence. That's not debatable. But fires spread faster in certain conditions, and the fire conditions in Australia this season are linked to climate change. That's not debatable, either. Arson arrests aren't any kind of proof that climate change isn't real. Not even close.

From Your Site Articles
climate change
Planet

Want to see stronger climate change policies? Elect more women as lawmakers

Joakim Honkasalo/Unsplash, Yale Climate Connections/Twitter

Despite the denial of the misinformed and delayed actions of politicians, climate change is the story of our time. Every reputable scientific organization on the planet agrees. Every signatory to the historic Paris Accord, which is basically every single one of the world's countries, agrees. Even the U.S. government agrees, with official government climate change reports totally contradicting what the president says and tweets. If we fail to address the very real threats climate change poses to life on our planet, it will be to our peril.

So what do we do about the fact that he leaders of the world are failing to address climate change in a meaningful and effective manner? According to a study out of Australia's Curtin University, there is one promising solution—elect more women into office.

RELATED: Look at the photos and videos of thousands of youth demanding climate change action NOW.

The study, which examined the legislatures of 91 countries, found that the more women a country has in lawmaking positions, the more stringent the country's climate change policies are. Conducted by economics professors Astghik Mavisakalyan and Yashar Tarverdi, the study included many different factors, including GDP per capita, education statistics, and the political orientation of each country. According to the study authors, none of these factors could explain the link between greater female leadership and stronger climate policies.

In fact, their findings indicate that "this relationship is likely to be causal." In other words, it appears that placing women in positions of power may lead directly to stricter climate change legislation. And that relationship has real world impact as well. The study shows that "through its effect on the stringency of climate change policies, the representation of females in parliament results in lower carbon dioxide emissions."

We've seen how women of all ages are leading the charge when it comes to climate change. From the mighty teen Greta Thunberg to the mighty elder Jane Fonda, the health and future of our planet is in strong female hands. But to make a difference in the halls of government, where earth-saving regulation of greenhouse gas emissions and fossil fuels takes place, we need more women in positions of direct lawmaking influence. It's not enough to have women raising their voices—we also need them taking seats in legislative bodies.

RELATED: Think women don't win elections? They do. And more of them should run.

Considering the fact that women are more directly impacted by the effects of climate change, perhaps the findings of this study are not surprising. Add in the fact that women statistically make better leaders than men, and it makes sense that female lawmakers would be more likely to lead the way on the world's most pressing challenge.

Naturally, battling climate change is not as simple as electing more women, and there is certainly debate to be had on how best to mitigate the climate crisis. But it's not debatable that immediate action is vital for the well-being of our planet and every living thing on it. It's now clear that women take fiercer action on climate change when they are elected, and it's been proven that women win elections when they run. So this seems like a no brainer.

Let's get more women on the ballot and elect more of them to office. The future of our planet might literally depend on it.

Trending Stories