Philippa Kaur

For her master’s degree, Anaëlle Durfort calculated levels of carbon sequestered by whale carcasses that had fallen to the ocean floor in the Southern Hemisphere.Credit: Raphael Seguin

Anaëlle Durfort quantifies carbon sequestered in marine fauna for her PhD in ecology at the University of Montpellier, France, to highlight the links between biodiversity and climate change.Why are you investigating carbon sequestration in animals?The way in which carbon moves into the ocean through whales demonstrates the complex links between biodiversity and climate. Climate change affects living organisms, which themselves affect greenhouse-gas emissions.One striking example comes from my master’s degree, also at Montpellier, which focused on quantifying the carbon sequestered in the Southern Hemisphere since 1890 by the carcasses of five species of whale. Because they’re so huge, whales hold a lot of carbon in their tissues and, after dying, they trap that carbon on the ocean floor for more than a century. But the effectiveness of these animals as a carbon ‘pump’, moving carbon from the atmosphere, and eventually to the bottom of the ocean, varies according to the size of cetacean populations.Before they were exploited on an industrial scale, whales were abundant in the Antarctic, and a team that I worked with during my master’s estimated that they sequestered a total of 400,000 tonnes of carbon per year1. We calculated that this figure had dropped to 60,000 tonnes by 1972, because of the impact of centuries of commercial whaling. Since whaling was banned temporarily through an international agreement in 1986, populations have been slowly recovering.
The ancient whale from my Egyptian home town
But the projected restoration of whale populations depends on the extent of climate change (as well as on factors such as the incidence of collisions between whales and ships). Looking at two scenarios, we estimated what the biomass of whale carcasses on the sea floor would be by 2100. Under the worst-case scenario proposed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (in which global warming ranges from 3.3 °C to 5.4 °C by 2100), the sequestration would reach 170,000 tonnes per year. Without climate change, recovered whale populations would be able to sequester nearly twice as much carbon.Whales won’t save the climate — global carbon emissions reached 10 gigatonnes (10 × 109 tonnes) in 2021 (ref. 2) — but my work shows how human activities are affecting the carbon sink that these animals provide, and might stop its recovery.Your research now focuses on krill. Why?Yes, I’ve moved down the food chain. My research focuses on assessing the biomass of Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba), small crustaceans that are essential to the Antarctic food web — and especially to whale diets.Looking at carbon sequestration mediated by exploited species such as whales and krill, the team I work with highlights the links between biodiversity, human activities and climate. Krill catching on an industrial scale, often for pet food or aquaculture supplements, has an impact on the entire marine food chain, as well as on biogeochemical cycles.More generally, the practice raises questions about using krill as a resource: are the benefits worth the environmental and climate damages? All of us should consider our activities with these questions in mind.

The skeletal remains of a whale fall at the bottom of the Andaman Sea, off the coast of Thailand.Credit: Getty

What do you think of putting a carbon price on whales?Looking at how much carbon whales can lock in, some economists and non-governmental organizations put a carbon price on the animals, betting that having this in place will encourage carbon offsetting and protect the animals. The idea is that companies, by paying the price in funding whale protection, can claim carbon credits for every whale they save.But this commodification of nature in the name of conservation seems problematic to me. These solutions are part of the same economic and societal framework that put us in the ecological and social crisis we are facing. This is not in line with the transformative changes that we need. What needs to change is our relationship with nature.You attended COP15, the United Nations biodiversity conference held in Montreal, Canada, in December 2022. What was it like?I was part of the Global Youth Biodiversity Network (GYBN), with more than 100 young representatives from all continents. This was a great experience for me, both as a scientist and as an environmental activist.
France’s research minister has a plan to shake up science
The conference was also an opportunity to get to know more about international biodiversity-conservation policies, to see the underlying mechanisms. What struck me most was the complexity of the negotiations — groups of all sorts were attending, including states and observers, such as non-profit entities, businesses, Indigenous people — and the technical nature of the debates. A lot is going on apart from the main negotiations between states’ representatives, with many interests represented at networking sessions and lobbying during the side events.At the GYBN, we had some victories, including Target 22 of the new Global Biodiversity Framework, which guarantees the participation of Indigenous peoples and local communities in decision-making on biodiversity-conservation policies.Have you ever seen a whaleUnfortunately, no. My work is in front of a computer, making models to look at how carbon-sequestration dynamics evolve under global warming and in response to commercial fishing. This work requires a lot of scientific collaboration, to access models of ocean change and population dynamics. I do a lot of cooperation, but no fieldwork. More

Law, B. E. et al. Commun. Earth Environ. 2, 254 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Peng, L., Searchinger, T. D., Zionts, J. & Waite, R. Nature 620, 110–115 (2023).Article 

Google Scholar 
Erb, K.-H. et al. Nature 553, 73–76 (2018).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Marques, A. et al. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 628–637 (2019).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hudiburg, T. W. et al. Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 095005 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mackey, B. et al. Environ. Res. Lett. 17, 054028 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mildrexler, D. J. et al. Front. For. Glob. Change 3, 594274 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Law, B. E. et al. Land 11, 721 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Birdsey, R. A. et al. Front. For. Glob. Change 5, 1074508 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lutz, J. A. et al. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 27, 849–864 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
REN21. Renewables 2022 Global Status Report (REN21 Secretariat, 2022).
Google Scholar 
Sterman, J. D. et al. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 015007 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (eds Field, C. B. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).
Google Scholar 
Searchinger, T. D. et al. Science 326, 527–528 (2009).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Giles-Hansen, K. & Wei, X. Environ. Res. Lett. 17, 044049 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Moomaw, W. R. et al. Front. For. Glob. Change 2, 27 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Parmesan, C. et al. in Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Pörtner, H.-O. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2022).
Google Scholar  More

Botos use clicks and whistles to communicate with each other and to find prey.Credit: Sylvain Cordier/Gamma-Rapho via Getty

Researchers have used artificial intelligence (AI) to map the movements of two endangered species of dolphin in the Amazon River by training a neural network to recognize the animals’ unique clicks and whistles.The findings, published in Scientific Reports on 27 July1, could lead to better conservation strategies by helping researchers to build an accurate picture of the dolphins’ movements across a vast area of rainforest that becomes submerged each year after the rainy season.Using sound is much less invasive than conventional tracking techniques, such as the use of GPS tags, boats or aerial drones.
Saving the Amazon: how science is helping Indigenous people protect their homelands
“Sound is probably the only sense that we know of that we all share on Earth,” says co-author Michel André, a bioacoustician at the Technical University of Catalonia in Barcelona, Spain.André and his colleagues wanted to explore the activity of two species, the boto (Inia geoffrensis) — also known as the pink river dolphin — and the tucuxi (Sotalia fluviatilis) across the floodplains of the Mamirauá reserve in northern Brazil. The researchers placed underwater microphones at several sites to eavesdrop on the animals’ whereabouts.To distinguish the dolphin sounds from the noisy soundscape of the Amazon, they turned to AI, feeding the recordings into a deep-learning neural network capable of categorizing sounds in real time, “exactly as we do with our own brain”, says André.Using this technology, researchers can analyse volumes of information “that would otherwise be almost impossible”, says Federico Mosquera-Guerra, who studies Amazonian dolphins at the National University of Colombia in Bogotá.The AI was trained to identify three types of sound: dolphin, rainfall and boat engines. Both dolphin species use echolocation clicks almost constantly to sense their environment, and they communicate to others by whistling. Detecting these clicks and whistles enabled the researchers to map the animals’ movements. Botos and tucuxis have distinct whistles, so the neural network could distinguish between the species.Conservation effortsThe study is a part of a collaboration between the Technical University of Catalonia and the Mamirauá Institute of Sustainable Development in Tefé, Brazil, which aims to use this technology for monitoring the Amazon’s biodiversity and threats to it.
AI empowers conservation biology
Both dolphin species are endangered: estimates suggest that the boto population is declining by 50% every ten years, and the tucuxi population every nine years2. Monitoring when and where the animals move will allow researchers to help protect their populations and come up with measures to help “Indigenous communities to cohabitate with the presence of dolphins”, says André. Dolphins can disrupt fisheries across the floodplains, for example, by competing for fish or becoming tangled in nets.Mosquera-Guerra says that collecting such information is “fundamental” to inform decisions on conservation across the Amazon region.In future, the team wants to train the neural network to detect other aquatic species, and to deploy the system over a wider area. The same approach could also be used in the ocean. André’s previous work using this system has shown the effects of human-made noise pollution on sperm whales, and has enabled the development of a warning system for ships to help avoid the animals3. More

Helmeted hornbills (Rhinoplax vigil) eat fruit and so are key to seed dispersal. Over-trading in this species is likely to damage its native ecosystem.Credit: Tim Plowden/Alamy

Every year, more than 100 million plants and animals are traded legally and illegally around the world. But whether this is sustainable remains hotly debated by researchers. A study published on 26 July in Nature1 sheds some light on the issue by creating a global map of ecosystems’ resilience to current levels of wildlife trade.The findings could help to show conservation scientists and policymakers where to focus resources, by identifying the hotspots where wildlife trade could cause the most damage.
Major wildlife report struggles to tally humanity’s exploitation of species
“It’s one thing to say, ‘we know that trade is unsustainable’,” says study co-author Oscar Morton, a conservation biologist at the University of Sheffield, UK. “It’s another thing to say, ‘we know what happens to ecosystem X when we take out species A’.”For example, he says more than one million tokay geckos (Gekko gecko) — small, colourful lizards common in southeast Asia — are traded every year as pets. But whether that volume of trade is sustainable is unknown.Whole-ecosystem effectsWhen measuring the overall sustainability of the wildlife trade, individual species cannot be considered in isolation, says Morton. Yet it’s so complex to analyse the impact of the industry on ecosystems as a whole that few attempt it.Morton and his colleagues addressed this gap by collating data on the legal trade in birds and mammals collected by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and legal and illegal trade from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). The researchers overlaid this information on maps of the distribution of various species across the world.

Source: Ref 1.

They added data on the phylogeny of species — their evolutionary histories — to indicate whether each has unique traits (See ‘Hotspots of uniqueness’). They also included information about the species’ functional role in the ecosystem — for example, whether it is a large predator or a tiny grazer. “In a healthy ecosystem, you want a wide range of traits, because then they do all of your ecosystem services — so seed dispersal, carbon stocking, pest control,” says Morton.The resulting maps allow the team to visualize the potential impact of removing a species from an ecosystem.For example, hornbill birds are heavily traded for their casques, the bony protrusions on their upper beaks. But as large fruit-eaters, the birds have a key role in seed dispersal in their ecosystems. If hornbills were to be depleted from an area, the vegetation would change radically, with knock-on effects for the birds, insects and other animals that inhabit the ecosystem, says Morton.Damaging tradeThe map revealed global hotspots where trade has the most potential to damage, that is, ecosystems where functional and evolutionary diversity was high. “It’s an impressive piece of research that brings together a huge amount of data,” says Vincent Nijman, a specialist in wildlife trade at Oxford Brookes University, UK. He says the map clearly shows that in relatively small areas of the world, the industry could put ecosystems at risk. He points to parts of Africa and southeast Asia as being important hotspots.
Ivory hunting drives evolution of tuskless elephants
“If we were to be able to pay more attention” to regulating trade in those regions, says Nijman, “then we’re going to get a much better return on our investment”.International and domestic policies should require assessments of the impact of the wildlife trade on entire ecosystems, says Morton. “We should be looking at ecosystem sustainability as well as species sustainability, when we talk about trade sustainability,” he says.As well as playing a part in their ecosystems, many species have intrinsic scientific value, says data scientist Mike Massam at the University of Sheffield, a co-author of the study. “We don’t want to lose millions and millions of years of evolutionary history.” More

Last month, I led a team in the thrilling discovery of a deep-sea octopus nursery on underwater mountains, only the fourth such location known in the world. It was incredible to witness octopuses being born, their tiny pink tentacles springing to life. Worryingly, any day now, the International Seabed Authority (ISA) could green-light mining for metals and rare-earth elements in habitats such as these.Between 10 and 21 July, ISA’s council met in Kingston, Jamaica, to hash out a code of rules for deep-sea mining in international waters. Interest in exploiting the deep sea is exploding thanks to its deposits of cobalt, nickel, rare-earth elements and other metals that are used in key green-energy technologies such as electric-vehicle batteries, solar panels and wind-turbine magnets. ISA, an intergovernmental body tasked by the United Nations with regulating deep-sea mining while ensuring the protection of the marine environment, missed a 9 July deadline to finish the code. Now, commercial mining applications could be submitted to ISA even though the code is not complete, which raises many legal issues that its council is rushing to try to resolve.
Deep-sea mining could soon be approved — how bad is it?
The code would be a legally binding document defining: how environmental-impact assessments must be done; the thresholds for harm to the marine environment; how inspection, monitoring and enforcement would occur; and how the benefits of mining would be shared equally between countries.In my view, it is impossible to effectively protect, monitor for harm or restore these ecosystems without a basic understanding of their biology. Some of the sought-after minerals are found in lumps called nodules that form on the sea floor over millions of years. Mining them currently requires scraping large tracts of sea bed, which is destructive and indiscriminate.For the two weeks of the ISA meeting, I fielded hundreds of daily messages while providing expert scientific guidance to delegations in my capacity as a contributor to the Deep-Ocean Stewardship Initiative.I told the delegations that the world knows too little about deep-sea ecosystems to judge what rules would ensure their protection. It is difficult to even convey the immense scale of our knowledge gaps. Deep-sea corals — like trees on land — are keystone species in their habitats, providing crucial structure for other forms of life. Scientists don’t really know how these corals reproduce: spawning has never been documented. How can we restore a baseline that we have never observed? We need research covering at least ten years for each habitat to be able to make evidence-based decisions.Mining will affect animals, such as corals, that are attached to the sea bed and microorganisms that provide crucial ecosystem services, such as carbon fixation and nutrient recycling. It will affect the entire water column above the sea floor, generating plumes of debris as well as noise and light pollution that could affect migratory species, including commercially important animals such as tuna. The deep sea is a repository for immense genetic diversity that could yield new scientific insights.There is irreplaceable scientific value in some deep-sea ecosystems, such as the Lost City field of hydrothermal vents near the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, with its towering ‘cathedrals’ of carbonates. Its unique chemistry and microbiology yield clues about how life evolved on Earth and whether it might exist on other planets.
The global fight for critical minerals is costly and damaging
Restoration is commonly used in land-based mining to make up for harm caused. But the deep sea operates on a profoundly slower timescale than ecosystems on land, and there is no evidence that restoration would work as a mitigation strategy. Forests can be replanted, but there is no current evidence that deep-sea habitats could be repaired on human timescales after extensive damage. In fact, studies suggest that natural restoration of deep-sea ecosystems and their services will probably take thousands to millions of years.Proponents of deep-sea mining argue that it causes less environmental damage and has fewer human impacts than does mining on land, but it is not yet possible to know the effects on the deep sea, let alone compare them with those of land-based mining. Besides, this argument seems a false dichotomy to me. Deep-sea mining will not replace mining on land — both types will probably continue.I think that the urgent need for critical minerals should further spur innovation instead of leading to irreplaceable deep-sea ecosystems being wiped out. Nations should boost investment in battery chemistry research, which shows promise for reducing the need for these materials, and in reuse and reclamation programmes for the metals already extracted that are currently destined to sit in landfill.It’s not just hundreds of scientists around the world — including me — who are calling to pause mining in the deep sea because of the lack of understanding of these ecosystems. Twenty countries support a pause or moratorium, including Brazil, Canada, Germany and New Zealand, and France supports a ban. Major companies including Google, Microsoft, BMW and Volkswagen have pledged not to buy or finance deep-sea minerals until the supply chain meets environmental, social and governance standards.When I was an undergraduate student two decades ago, deep-sea mining was discussed as if it were science fiction, not likely to happen in my lifetime. I hope it stays in the realm of fiction. We have much better options for the future of our society and our planet. More

Research suggests that some seaweed might have health benefits for people, including helping to protect against cancer, diabetes and other diseases. Extreme temperatures, light and water salinity can boost the levels of compounds behind these effects.As a fisheries engineer at the Sheep Breeding Research Institute in Bandırma, Turkey, I research the chemistry of marine organisms, including seaweeds and molluscs, and their potential for farming. In this picture, taken this year, I’m collecting seaweed samples near Horseshoe Island in Antarctica on an expedition funded by the Turkish government. With our collaborators at the Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University in Turkey, we aim to identify species, analyse their chemical compositions and determine their chemical processes that are associated with health benefits.The only other study of seaweed diversity near the island was in 1976, which identified six species (R. L. Moe & T. E. DeLaca Antarct. J. 11, 20–24; 1976). We think we have found more than 15, including some that had been recorded only in other parts of Antarctica. Diversity near the island could have changed because climate change and glacier melt have altered light levels, brought in more fresh water and provided new nutrients.We are analysing these samples for antioxidants, chlorophyll and other compounds — as well as proteins, lipids and amino and fatty acids — because they affect the extent of protection against disease.Last year, we increased antioxidant compounds in Gongolaria barbata, a common brown seaweed, by changing how much light it received and the salinity of the water in which we grew it (I. Ak et al. Phycologia 61, 584–594; 2022). Seaweed extracts are already used in the production of food supplements, such as omega-3.It might one day be possible to farm Antarctic seaweed species containing a lot of compounds that improve human wellness, just by altering growing conditions. More

Sarah Batterman talks frankly about her experience of sexual harrassment at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute. Its director Josh Tewkesbury describes steps taken to protect staff.

Your browser does not support the audio element.

Download MP3

See transcript

In late 2021 a BuzzFeed investigation revealed a catalogue of sexual misconduct incidents at the Panama-based Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (STRI). Ecologist Sarah Batterman, one of more than a dozen women to speak out about their experiences, describes what happened to her and the impact it has had on her career.Batterman, who filed a formal complaint to the institute in 2020 after being contacted by other women with similar experiences of harassment and abuse at STRI, tells Adam Levy: “It was almost 10 years of a lot of pain after what happened, which made a lot of my research really difficult. I estimate that I lost three of the 10 years in productivity.”Josh Tewkesbury joined STRI as its director in July 2021, five months before the BuzzFeed story broke. He describes the measures taken to safeguard scientists from sexual harassment and assault since its investigation concluded.“We have been working with the people that came forward for the BuzzFeed article, engaging them in the process of how we make STRI a more safe place. ” he says. “We’ve been just overwhelmed and really thankful with the degree to which those individuals have, have been willing to engage.”This episode is part of a Working Scientist podcast series about freedom and safety in science. More

A Brazilian petrochemical company wants to drill exploratory oil wells in the ocean near the mouth of the Amazon, one of the world’s biggest rivers. Although Brazil’s environmental-protection agency has so far rejected the state-run firm’s request, researchers worry that the plan might one day be approved, encouraging further offshore drilling in the area. In particular, they are concerned about the effects of the drilling — and inevitable oil leaks — on a vast reef system nearby.
Saving the Amazon: how science is helping Indigenous people protect their homelands
“There’s a palpable risk of an oil spill if activities proceed — the fact it is an exploratory well for studying the region’s potential for deep-sea oil doesn’t exempt it from accidents,” says Carlos Rezende, a marine biologist at the State University of Northern Rio de Janeiro in Campos dos Goytacazes, Brazil.In May, the Brazilian Institute for the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (Ibama) turned down oil firm Petrobras’s application to drill in what’s known as the FZA-M-59 block, a parcel of sea floor about 175 kilometres from the coast of northern Brazil, near the border with French Guiana, and about 540 kilometres from the mouth of the Amazon River (see ‘Oil prospecting’). The agency said that the company’s assessment of environmental impacts and its emergency plan in the event of a leak are insufficient. Petrobras, which is based in Rio de Janeiro, has since appealed and filed a new request.The company defended itself to Nature, saying that in the planned drilling location, “there is no record of any nearby conservation units, nor is it located near rivers, lakes, floodplains or reef systems”. But Rezende argues that the Great Amazon Reef System is only about 50 kilometres from the site, and that oil in the water could travel that distance.

Source: Adapted from L. S. Araujo et al. Mar. Pol. 128, 104465 (2021)

Threats to the reef system, which lies 70–220 metres below the ocean surface, are of great concern to some scientists. It has been difficult to explore the area because of turbulent waters, but studies estimate that the reef spans between 9,500 and 56,000 square kilometres across the mouth of the Amazon12. When it was first described by scientists in the 1970s, researchers did not observe rich biodiversity. But studies in 20162 and 20193 found a thriving ecosystem that’s home to corals, sponges and fish communities.“It is huge, and it is sensitive,” says Ronaldo Francini-Filho, a marine ecosystems researcher at the University of São Paulo in Brazil. “And we don’t know even 5% of what’s down there.”Rodrigo de Moura, a marine ecologist at the Federal University of Rio De Janeiro who has mapped reefs off the Amazon’s mouth, agrees. “There are a lot of known unknowns there,” he says. Because researchers don’t know a lot about the reef’s habitats and water circulation, “a comprehensive evaluation of the risks from oil and gas exploitation is currently impossible”, he adds.A promising blockIf the project is approved, it could set a precedent to allow drilling at 15 other deep-sea sites nearby that are flagged for exploration, says Suely Araújo, a senior policy specialist at the Climate Observatory, a Rio de Janeiro-based civil-society coalition focused on climate-change policy.So far, 95 exploratory wells have been drilled in the region without striking much oil; some natural-gas deposits have been found, but none big enough for commercial purposes. These wells were all in shallow waters, but FZA-M-59 is at a depth of 2,800 metres, in a part of the ocean that some researchers think is more promising. Egberto Pereira, an organic geochemist at Rio de Janeiro State University, says it’s possible that oil lies beneath FZA-M-59, because the area’s landscape and rock composition are similar to those of an oil-rich region off Guyana, where oil company ExxonMobil has operated since 2015.

The Great Amazon Reef System is home to sea sponges and other organisms.Credit: Greenpeace

Offshore drilling has been beneficial to Brazil in the past: in particular, drilling off the southeast coast in basins near São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro brought a windfall. In 2010, Petrobras raised more than US$25 billion for exploratory drilling in the region. Aloizio Mercadante, president of the Brazilian Development Bank in Rio de Janeiro, has estimated that the Equatorial Margin — a region that stretches over 2,200 kilometres along Brazil’s north coast and includes FZA-M-59 — could yield between 10 billion and 30 billion barrels of oil.But researchers think it’s premature to make such estimates when oil hasn’t been found yet. And they aren’t convinced that Petrobras has properly assessed the impact of the drilling. The company says its oil-spill modelling fulfils Ibama’s requisites. “The results indicate that there is no likelihood of [oil] touching the Brazilian coast” in the event of a leak, Petrobras says.But the modelling did show that oil could reach French Guiana, Guyana, Suriname and the Caribbean, Rezende points out. He also says that the models used by Petrobras “do not consider wind-generated waves, which are quite intense in the region and would certainly pull oil to the coast”. Petrobras stands by its modelling, saying that it used the “most modern techniques and systems”.Researchers worry that if oil were to reach the coast, it could damage mangroves at the mouth of the Amazon. “The region houses the second-largest continuous mangrove area in the world,” Francini-Filho says. “As it is highly sensitive, oil contamination would be catastrophic.”A greener future?Petrobras tells Nature it has drilled almost 3,000 wells at deep-sea sites without any complications, and that these, “added to the technical expertise and experience accumulated over 70 years, allow the company to open new frontiers with total security towards the Equatorial Margin’s environmental sensitivity”.
Illegal mining in the Amazon hits record high amid Indigenous protests
But even if the drilling can be done safely, researchers still question the idea of tapping into new oil reserves — which would create carbon emissions — while the world is battling climate change. Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva campaigned as an environmental crusader who would protect the country’s biodiversity and health. Allowing drilling in FZA-M-59 could cast doubt on his sincerity.“Is this what we want as a country?” asks Araújo. If approved, the project wouldn’t begin producing oil until 2030. “How much will a barrel be worth by then, when nations are supposed to be converting to renewable energy?” she asks. “We should be thinking of a development plan for the twenty-first century.”Ibama says it is analysing Petrobras’s latest request, but has set no date for a decision. More