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.

GoGreenNation News

Learn more about the issues presented in our films
Show Filters

Global climate impacts are set to drastically reduce average income levels by 2050

A new study reveals that by 2050, global incomes will decrease by almost 20% on average due to severe climate impacts, which will cost significantly more than proactive measures to limit temperature rises.Jonathan Watts reports for The Guardian.In short:The study predicts $38 trillion in annual damages by mid-century due to climate change, significantly outpacing earlier estimates.Income reductions will vary, with North America and Europe seeing about 11% decreases, while hotter regions like Africa and South Asia face over 20% losses.The research advocates for rapid emission reductions to mitigate severe future economic and environmental impacts.Key quote:"It’s devastating... The inequality dimension was really shocking."— Leonie Wenz, scientist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact ResearchWhy this matters:The study's authors note that the cost of damage from extreme weather events is six times more than what it would cost to limit warming to 2 degrees. How do we get to real solutions? John Harte, a physicist-turned-ecologist at the University of California, Berkeley, provides some answers.

A new study reveals that by 2050, global incomes will decrease by almost 20% on average due to severe climate impacts, which will cost significantly more than proactive measures to limit temperature rises.Jonathan Watts reports for The Guardian.In short:The study predicts $38 trillion in annual damages by mid-century due to climate change, significantly outpacing earlier estimates.Income reductions will vary, with North America and Europe seeing about 11% decreases, while hotter regions like Africa and South Asia face over 20% losses.The research advocates for rapid emission reductions to mitigate severe future economic and environmental impacts.Key quote:"It’s devastating... The inequality dimension was really shocking."— Leonie Wenz, scientist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact ResearchWhy this matters:The study's authors note that the cost of damage from extreme weather events is six times more than what it would cost to limit warming to 2 degrees. How do we get to real solutions? John Harte, a physicist-turned-ecologist at the University of California, Berkeley, provides some answers.

New rule prioritizes conservation on US public lands

A new rule introduced by the Biden administration aims to balance conservation with economic activities on America's public lands, enhancing protections and sustainable use. Catrin Einhorn reports for The New York Times.In short:The rule impacts 245 million acres, promoting ecological restoration and compensating for environmental damage.Conservation will now be considered as significant as grazing, mining, and other land uses.The measure responds to the increasing environmental pressures such as climate-induced wildfires and droughts.Key quote: "As stewards of America's public lands, the Interior Department takes seriously our role in helping bolster landscape resilience in the face of worsening climate impacts." — Deb Haaland, U.S. Secretary of the Interior.Why this matters: This policy represents a strategic shift in how public lands are managed, intertwining ecological health with national economic and security interests, and addressing the urgent challenges posed by climate change. Read more from EHN's newsroom: Public lands are not neutral. We must grapple with their racist roots.

A new rule introduced by the Biden administration aims to balance conservation with economic activities on America's public lands, enhancing protections and sustainable use. Catrin Einhorn reports for The New York Times.In short:The rule impacts 245 million acres, promoting ecological restoration and compensating for environmental damage.Conservation will now be considered as significant as grazing, mining, and other land uses.The measure responds to the increasing environmental pressures such as climate-induced wildfires and droughts.Key quote: "As stewards of America's public lands, the Interior Department takes seriously our role in helping bolster landscape resilience in the face of worsening climate impacts." — Deb Haaland, U.S. Secretary of the Interior.Why this matters: This policy represents a strategic shift in how public lands are managed, intertwining ecological health with national economic and security interests, and addressing the urgent challenges posed by climate change. Read more from EHN's newsroom: Public lands are not neutral. We must grapple with their racist roots.

Silence of the natural world signals a biodiversity crisis

Studies reveal that natural soundscapes are diminishing due to loss of species and ecosystem degradation.Phoebe Weston reports for The Guardian.In short: Ecoacoustics research indicates a global reduction in the natural sounds of ecosystems due to declining species diversity and abundance.Declines in the diversity and intensity of natural sounds have been documented across North America and Europe over the past 25 years.Experts emphasize that sounds like bird calls and insect hums are vanishing, warning of "acoustic fossils" if protective measures are not taken.Key quote: "The changes are profound. And they are happening everywhere." — Bernie Krause, U.S. soundscape recordistWhy this matters: The disappearance of natural sounds not only signifies a loss of biodiversity but also marks a concerning trend in environmental health, affecting global ecosystems and human wellbeing. Read more: The health of wildlife is inseparable from our own.

Studies reveal that natural soundscapes are diminishing due to loss of species and ecosystem degradation.Phoebe Weston reports for The Guardian.In short: Ecoacoustics research indicates a global reduction in the natural sounds of ecosystems due to declining species diversity and abundance.Declines in the diversity and intensity of natural sounds have been documented across North America and Europe over the past 25 years.Experts emphasize that sounds like bird calls and insect hums are vanishing, warning of "acoustic fossils" if protective measures are not taken.Key quote: "The changes are profound. And they are happening everywhere." — Bernie Krause, U.S. soundscape recordistWhy this matters: The disappearance of natural sounds not only signifies a loss of biodiversity but also marks a concerning trend in environmental health, affecting global ecosystems and human wellbeing. Read more: The health of wildlife is inseparable from our own.

Indonesian religious leaders push for environmental action through Islamic teachings

In Indonesia, clerics are leading a movement to merge Islamic teachings with environmental conservation efforts.Sui-Lee Wee reports for The New York Times.In short:Grand Imam Nasaruddin Umar advocates for environmental guardianship as a religious duty, encouraging sustainable practices like planting trees and using renewable energy in mosques.Indonesian clerics have issued fatwas that frame environmental protection as a religious obligation, aiming to curb climate change and preserve the nation’s biodiversity.Efforts to green mosques have gained momentum, with the Istiqlal Mosque in Jakarta setting a precedent by winning a green building award and installing energy-saving technologies.Key quote: "The greedier we are toward nature, the sooner doomsday will arrive." — Grand Imam Nasaruddin Umar, head of Istiqlal MosqueWhy this matters: Indonesia's unique approach of integrating faith with ecology serves as a potential model for global environmental reform, particularly in regions where religion significantly influences daily life and policy. Read more about the intersection of religion and the environmental movement: Unconventional pathways to science, with Dr. Katharine Hayhoe.

In Indonesia, clerics are leading a movement to merge Islamic teachings with environmental conservation efforts.Sui-Lee Wee reports for The New York Times.In short:Grand Imam Nasaruddin Umar advocates for environmental guardianship as a religious duty, encouraging sustainable practices like planting trees and using renewable energy in mosques.Indonesian clerics have issued fatwas that frame environmental protection as a religious obligation, aiming to curb climate change and preserve the nation’s biodiversity.Efforts to green mosques have gained momentum, with the Istiqlal Mosque in Jakarta setting a precedent by winning a green building award and installing energy-saving technologies.Key quote: "The greedier we are toward nature, the sooner doomsday will arrive." — Grand Imam Nasaruddin Umar, head of Istiqlal MosqueWhy this matters: Indonesia's unique approach of integrating faith with ecology serves as a potential model for global environmental reform, particularly in regions where religion significantly influences daily life and policy. Read more about the intersection of religion and the environmental movement: Unconventional pathways to science, with Dr. Katharine Hayhoe.

UN livestock emissions report seriously distorted our work, say experts

Exclusive: Study released at Cop28 misused research to underestimate impact of cutting meat eating, say academicsA flagship UN report on livestock emissions is facing calls for retraction from two key experts it cited who say that the paper “seriously distorted” their work.The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) misused their research to underestimate the potential of reduced meat intake to cut agricultural emissions, according to a letter sent to the FAO by the two academics, which the Guardian has seen. Continue reading...

A flagship UN report on livestock emissions is facing calls for retraction from two key experts it cited who say that the paper “seriously distorted” their work.The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) misused their research to underestimate the potential of reduced meat intake to cut agricultural emissions, according to a letter sent to the FAO by the two academics, which the Guardian has seen.Paul Behrens, an associate professor at Leiden University and Matthew Hayek, an assistant professor at New York University, both accuse the FAO study of systematic errors, poor framing, and highly inappropriate use of source data.Hayek told the Guardian: “The FAO’s errors were multiple, egregious, conceptual and all had the consequence of reducing the emissions mitigation possibilities from dietary change far below what they should be. None of the mistakes had the opposite effect.”Agriculture accounts for 23% of global greenhouse gas emissions, most of which are attributable to livestock in the form of methane from burps and manure, and deforestation for grazing and feed crops. As global meat production leapt by 39% in the first two decades of this century, agricultural emissions also rose by 14%.At the Cop28 climate summit in December, the FAO published the third in a series of studies of the livestock emissions problem. As well as reducing the FAO’s estimate of livestock’s contribution to overall global heating for a third consecutive time, it used a paper written by Behrens and others in 2017 to argue that shifts away from meat eating could only reduce global agri-food emissions by between 2 and 5%.Behrens’s paper from 2017 assessed the environmental impacts of government-backed nationally recommended diets (NRDs) of the time, which have since become outdated. Many countries, such as China and Denmark, have drastically reduced their recommended meat intake since then, while Germany now proposes a 75% plant-based diet in its NRD.Behrens says “voluminous evidence” from larger environmental reports which recommended reductions in meat content, such as the Eat-Lancet Planetary Health Diet, were ignored, according to the letter.“The scientific consensus at the moment is that dietary shifts are the biggest leverage we have to reduce emissions and other damage caused by our food system,” Behrens told the Guardian. “But the FAO chose the roughest and most inappropriate approach to their estimates and framed it in a way that was very useful for interest groups seeking to show that plant-based diets have a small mitigation potential compared to alternatives.”Of more than 200 climate scientists surveyed by Behrens and Hayek for a recent paper, 78% said it was important for livestock herd sizes to peak by 2025 if the world was to stand a chance of preventing dangerous global heating.As well as using obsolete NRDs, the scientists say the FAO report “systematically underestimates” the emissions-cutting potential of dietary shifts through what the letter calls a “series of methodological errors”.The authors say these include: double-counting meat emissions until 2050, mixing different baseline years in analyses, and channelling data inputs that inappropriately favour diets allowing increased global meat consumption. The FAO paper also skips over the opportunity cost of carbon sequestration on non-farmed land.Hayek said the FAO inappropriately cited a report he co-authored that measured all agri-food emissions, and applied it to livestock emissions alone. “It wasn’t just like comparing apples to oranges,” he said. “It was like comparing really small apples to really big oranges.”Correspondingly, the mitigation potential from farming less livestock was underestimated by a factor of between 6 and 40, he said.The FAO is the world’s primary source for agricultural data, and its reports are routinely used by authoritative bodies such as the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But the FAO is also mandated to increase livestock productivity so as to bolster nutrition and food security, arguably creating a conflict of interests.Former officials have accused the FAO of censoring and sabotaging their work when it challenged livestock industry positions. A recent FAO roadmap to making the sector sustainable also omitted the option of reducing meat intake from a list of 120 policy interventions.That paper received praise from meat industry lobbyists, one of whom called it “music to our ears” when it was released at Cop28.An FAO spokesperson said: “As a knowledge-based organisation, FAO is fully committed to ensuring accuracy and integrity in scientific publications, especially given the significant implications for policymaking and public understanding.“We would like to assure you that the report in question has undergone a rigorous review process with both an internal and external double-blind peer review to ensure that the research meets the highest standards of quality and accuracy, and that potential biases are minimised. FAO will look into the issues raised by the academics and undertake a technical exchange of views with them.”

A unified effort is crucial for the successful negotiation of the global plastics treaty

A new global plastics treaty, currently under negotiation, seeks to address rampant plastic pollution and its environmental and health impacts.Martin Wagner reports for Nature.In short:The treaty aims to reduce dependency on fossil fuels and the release of hazardous substances from plastics.There is broad support for the treaty from the public, researchers, and some businesses, yet significant resistance from fossil fuel-dependent nations and industries.The treaty's success depends on minimizing corporate interference and protecting scientific discussions from undue influence.Key quote: "The widespread support for the treaty is also striking. It comes from not only researchers, but also the public, civil society and businesses — 'all the stars are aligned,' as one of my colleagues says." — Martin Wagner, AuthorWhy this matters: This treaty represents a critical step toward improving public health by mitigating the environmental damage caused by plastics. Read more from our newsroom: “Plastic will overwhelm us:” Scientists say health should be the core of global plastic treaty.

A new global plastics treaty, currently under negotiation, seeks to address rampant plastic pollution and its environmental and health impacts.Martin Wagner reports for Nature.In short:The treaty aims to reduce dependency on fossil fuels and the release of hazardous substances from plastics.There is broad support for the treaty from the public, researchers, and some businesses, yet significant resistance from fossil fuel-dependent nations and industries.The treaty's success depends on minimizing corporate interference and protecting scientific discussions from undue influence.Key quote: "The widespread support for the treaty is also striking. It comes from not only researchers, but also the public, civil society and businesses — 'all the stars are aligned,' as one of my colleagues says." — Martin Wagner, AuthorWhy this matters: This treaty represents a critical step toward improving public health by mitigating the environmental damage caused by plastics. Read more from our newsroom: “Plastic will overwhelm us:” Scientists say health should be the core of global plastic treaty.

Earth Day reclaimed: activists fight corporate takeover of the movement

Climate activists advocate for a return to Earth Day's protest roots, opposing the commercial exploitation of the event.Kristin Hostetter reports for Outside.In short:Earth Day began in 1970 as a significant protest and has since morphed into a marketing tool for companies.Activists emphasize the day's origins and the need to focus on genuine environmental change rather than superficial corporate shows.Despite the commercialization, the activists interviewed maintain that Earth Day can still inspire valuable ecological behaviors and community actions.Key quote:"I urge anyone who wants to take action for climate to see the undeniable link to social justice.— Pattie Gonia, co-founder of The Outdoorist OathWhy this matters:Understanding the shift from Earth Day's activist roots to corporate greenwashing is important for distinguishing genuine community actions over superficial corporate initiatives. Read more: Earth Day: Amidst the greenwashing, it's still a good thing..

Climate activists advocate for a return to Earth Day's protest roots, opposing the commercial exploitation of the event.Kristin Hostetter reports for Outside.In short:Earth Day began in 1970 as a significant protest and has since morphed into a marketing tool for companies.Activists emphasize the day's origins and the need to focus on genuine environmental change rather than superficial corporate shows.Despite the commercialization, the activists interviewed maintain that Earth Day can still inspire valuable ecological behaviors and community actions.Key quote:"I urge anyone who wants to take action for climate to see the undeniable link to social justice.— Pattie Gonia, co-founder of The Outdoorist OathWhy this matters:Understanding the shift from Earth Day's activist roots to corporate greenwashing is important for distinguishing genuine community actions over superficial corporate initiatives. Read more: Earth Day: Amidst the greenwashing, it's still a good thing..

Unlocking Arctic Secrets Through Mercury and Ice

MIT PhD candidate Emma Bullock studies the local and global impacts of changing mineral levels in Arctic groundwater. A quick scan of Emma Bullock’s CV...

During a near-shore Beaufort Sea sampling campaign in July 2023, PhD student Emma Bullock sampled ocean water with recent meltwater inputs to test for radium isotopes, trace metals, carbon, nutrients, and mercury. Credit: Paul HendersonMIT PhD candidate Emma Bullock studies the local and global impacts of changing mineral levels in Arctic groundwater.A quick scan of Emma Bullock’s CV reads like those of many other MIT graduate students: She has served as a teaching assistant, written several papers, garnered grants from prestigious organizations, and acquired extensive lab and programming skills. But one skill sets her apart: “fieldwork experience and survival training for Arctic research.”That’s because Bullock, a doctoral student in chemical oceanography at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI), spends significant time collecting samples in the Arctic Circle for her research. Working in such an extreme environment requires comprehensive training in everything from Arctic gear usage and driving on unpaved roads to handling wildlife encounters — like the curious polar bear that got into her team’s research equipment. To date, she has ventured to Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, five times, where she typically spends long days — from 5:00 a.m. to 11 p.m. — collecting and processing samples from Simpson Lagoon. Her work focuses on Arctic environmental changes, particularly the effects of permafrost thaw on mercury levels in groundwater.“Even though I am doing foundational science, I can link it directly to communities in that region that are going to be impacted by the changes that we are seeing,” she says. “As the mercury escapes from the permafrost, it has the potential to impact not just Arctic communities but also anyone who eats fish in the entire world.”Weathering a Storm of SetbacksGrowing up in rural Vermont, Bullock spent a lot of time outside, and she attributes her strong interest in environmental studies to her love of nature as a child. Despite her conviction about a career path involving the environment, her path to the Institute has not been easy. In fact, Bullock weathered several challenges and setbacks on the road to MIT.As an undergraduate at Haverford College, Bullock quickly recognized that she did not have the same advantages as other students. She realized that her biggest challenge in pursuing an academic career was her socioeconomic background. She says, “In Vermont, the cost of living is a bit lower than a lot of other areas. So, I didn’t quite realize until I got to undergrad that I was not as middle-class as I thought.” Bullock had learned financial prudence from her parents, which informed many of the decisions she made as a student. She says, “I didn’t have a phone in undergrad because it was a choice between getting a good laptop that I could do research on or a phone. And so I went with the laptop.”Bullock majored in chemistry because Haverford did not offer an environmental science major. To gain experience in environmental research, she joined the lab of Helen White, focusing on the use of silicone bands as passive samplers of volatile organic compounds in honeybee hives. A pivotal moment occurred when Bullock identified errors in a collaborative project. She says, “[Dr. White and I] brought the information about flawed statistical tests to the collaborators, who were all men. They were not happy with that. They made comments that they did not like being told how to do chemistry by women.”White sat Bullock down and explained the pervasiveness of sexism in this field. “She said, ‘You have to remember that it is not you. You are a good scientist. You are capable,’” Bullock recalls. That experience strengthened her resolve to become an environmental scientist. “The way that Dr. Helen White approached dealing with this problem made me want to stick in the STEM field, and in the environmental and geochemistry fields specifically. It made me realize that we need more women in these fields,” she says.As she reached the end of college, Bullock knew that she wanted to continue her educational journey in environmental science. “Environmental science impacts the world around us in such visible ways, especially now with climate change,” she says. She submitted applications to many graduate programs, including to MIT, which was White’s alma mater, but was rejected by all of them.Undeterred, Bullock decided to get more research experience. She took a position as a lab technician at the Max Planck Institute of Marine Microbiology in Bremen, Germany, where she studied methane emissions from seagrass beds — her first foray into chemical oceanography. A year later, she applied to graduate schools again and was accepted by nearly all of the programs, including MIT. She hopes her experience can serve as a lesson for future applicants. “Just because you get rejected the first time does not mean that you’re not a good candidate. It just means that you may not have the right experience or that you didn’t understand the application process correctly,” she says.Understanding the Ocean Through the Lens of ChemistryUltimately, Bullock chose MIT because she was most interested in the specific scientific projects within the program and liked the sense of community. “It is a very unique program because we have the opportunity to take classes at MIT and access to the resources that MIT has, but we also perform research at Woods Hole,” she says. Some people warned her about the cutthroat nature of the Institute, but Bullock has found the exact opposite to be a true. “A lot of people think of MIT, and they think it is one of those top tier schools, so it must be competitive. My experience in this program is that it is very collaborative because our research is so individual and unique that you really can’t be competitive. What you are doing is so different from any other student,” she says.Bullock joined the group of Matthew Charette, senior scientist and director of the WHOI Sea Grant Program, which investigates the ocean through a chemical lens by characterizing the Arctic groundwater sampled during field campaigns in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. Bullock analyzes mercury and biotoxic methylmercury levels impacted by permafrost thaw, which is already affecting the health of Arctic communities. For comparison, Bullock points to mercury-based dental fillings, which have been the subject of scientific scrutiny for health impacts. She says, “You get more mercury by eating sushi and tuna and salmon than you would by having a mercury-based dental filling.”Environmental Advocacy and Future AspirationsBullock has been recognized as an Arctic PASSION Ambassador for her work in the historically underresearched Arctic region. As part of this program, she was invited to participate in a “sharing circle,” which connected early-career scientists with Indigenous community members, and then empowered them to pass what they learned about the importance of Arctic research onto their communities. This experience has been the highlight of her PhD journey so far. She says, “It was small enough, and the people there were invested enough in the issues that we got to have very interesting, dynamic conversations, which doesn’t always happen at typical conferences.”Bullock has also spearheaded her own form of environmental activism via a project called en-justice, which she launched in September 2023. Through a website and a traveling art exhibit, the project showcases portraits and interviews of lesser-known environmental advocates that “have arguably done more for the environment but are not as famous” as household names like Greta Thunberg and Leonardo DiCaprio.“They are doing things like going to town halls, arguing with politicians, getting petitions signed … the very nitty-gritty type work. I wanted to create a platform that highlighted some of these people from around the country but also inspired people in their own communities to try and make a change,” she says. Bullock has also written an op-ed for the WHOI magazine, Oceanus, and has served as a staff writer for the MIT-WHOI Joint Program newsletter, “Through the Porthole.”After she graduates this year, Bullock plans to continue her focus on the Arctic. She says, “I find Arctic research very interesting, and there are so many unanswered research questions.” She also aspires to foster further interactions like the sharing circle.“Trying to find a way where I can help facilitate Arctic communities and researchers in terms of finding each other and finding common interests would be a dream role. But I don’t know if that job exists,” Bullock says. Given her track record of overcoming obstacles, odds are, she will turn these aspirations into reality.

New analysis warns of pesticide residues on some fruits and veggies

This story was originally published in The New Lede, a journalism project of the Environmental Working Group, and is republished here with permission.Several types of fruits and vegetables generally considered to be healthy can contain levels of pesticide residues potentially unsafe for consumption, according to an analysis conducted by Consumer Reports (CR) released on Thursday.The report, which is based on seven years of data gathered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) as part of its annual pesticide residue reporting program, concluded that 20% of 59 different fruit and vegetable categories included in the analysis carried residue levels that posed “significant risks” to consumers of those foods.Those high-risk foods included bell peppers, blueberries, green beans, potatoes and strawberries, according to CR. The group found that some green beans even had residues of an insecticide called acephate, which has been banned for use on green beans by U.S. regulators since 2011. In one sample from 2022, levels of methamidophos (a breakdown product of acephate), were morethan 100 times the level CR scientists consider safe. In another sample, acephate levels were 7 times higher than CR considers safe.Overall, out of the nearly 30,000 total fruit and vegetable samples for which CR examined data, about 8% percent were deemed to have residues at “high risk or very high risk”. Imported produce was more likely to carry high levels of pesticide residues than domestically supplied foods, the report said, noting that residue levels can vary widely from sample to sample.The results “raise red flags,” according to CR. The report advises that children and pregnant women should consume less than a serving a day of high-risk fruits and vegetables, and less than half a serving per day of “very high-risk ones.”“People need to be concerned because we see that the more data we gather on pesticides, the more we realize the levels that we previously thought to be safe turn out not to be,” said Michael Hansen, a senior scientist at CR who was recently appointed to a USDA food safety advisory committee.The organization said the “good news” is that the data showed residues in most of the foods sampled, including 16 of 25 fruit categories and 21 of 34 vegetable types, presented “little to worry about.” Nearly all organic samples showed no concerning levels of pesticide residues.The report suggests consumers “try snap peas instead of green beans, cantaloupe in place of watermelon, cabbage or dark green lettuces for kale, and the occasional sweet potato instead of a white one.”Faulty safety assurances  In coming to its findings, CR said it analyzed USDA residue test results for 29,643 individual food samples and then rated the risk of each fruit or vegetable based on how many different pesticides were found in each, how frequently and at what levels the residues were found, and the toxicity for each pesticide detected.For pesticides known to be cancer-causing, neurotoxins or endocrine disruptors – chemicals that can alter the hormonal functions – CR added an extra safety margin requirement to the levels considered safe. “People need to be concerned because we see that the more data we gather on pesticides, the more we realize the levels that we previously thought to be safe turn out not to be." Michael Hansen, Consumer Reports The CR said its safety levels differ from those set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which establishes “maximum residue limits” (MRLs) for each crop use of a pesticide after developing a risk assessment that the agency says considers multiple factors, including aggregate exposure from the pesticides, cumulative effects of related pesticides, and potential increased increased susceptibility to infants and children. Based on the EPA’s MRLs, the USDA said in its most recent pesticide data program report that 99% of foods tested had residues within the safety limits. But the EPA’s limits are too high to be truly protective of public health, and do not adequately account for the risks associated with some pesticides, according to CR.“EPA stands by its comprehensive pesticide assessment and review process to ensure the safety of the U.S. food supply,” the agency said in a statement. “Since the pesticide registration review program started in 2006, EPA has cancelled some or all uses in nearly 25% of the conventional pesticide cases it has completed work on, where new science indicates a need for additional mitigations.” The EPA says it considers “all relevant data” in making human health risk assessments for pesticide use. It is common for many farmers to apply a range of pesticides, including herbicides, insecticides and fungicides, on their fields as a means to fight weeds, bugs and plant diseases. In some cases, they spray the chemicals directly over growing plants. Residues of these chemicals are found not only in food but often in drinking water as well. Both the Food and Drug Administration and the USDA have been tracking levels of pesticide residues in foods for decades, and have repeatedly assured the public that those residues are not a human health risk as long as they do not exceed the EPA’s MRLs. But those assurances have proven wrong in the past. In one example, the government long said the insecticide chlorpyrifos was safe to be used on food if residues were within the EPA’s established limits, despite strong scientific evidence that exposure could harm the brains and nervous systems of developing children.In 2015, after decades of use in agriculture, the EPA changed its stance, saying it could not determine if chlorpyrifos in the diet was actually safe, and proposed banning the pesticide from use in farming. It took until 2021 for the agency to issue a final rule banning the pesticide, and a court challenge to the ban has kept the chemical in use.Further undermining faith in the government’s assurance on pesticide residues is the fact that the EPA consults with the companies selling the chemicals in setting allowable residue levels, and those allowable levels can be increased at the request of the companies. The EPA has approved several increases allowed for residues of the weed killing chemical glyphosate, for instance. Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup herbicides, is classified as a probable human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer but the EPA considers it not likely to cause cancer.Industry influenceThe Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) requires the EPA to apply an additional tenfold safety margin to allowable exposure levels to account for the effects on vulnerable infants and children, and allows the agency to skip adding the safety margin “only if it will be safe for infants and children.” The agency has declined to apply that additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children when setting the legal levels for several pesticide residues, however, even when scientists have said it is needed.Pesticide manufacturers have successfully pushed the EPA not to apply the extra safety margin for dozens of pesticides that have “clear potential to damage DNA or disrupt development,” said Chuck Benbrook, a pesticide residue expert and a consultant on the CR report. “EPA has known about the existence of thousands of excessively high tolerances since the 2000s,” said Benbrook. “Despite the powerful new tools and mandate in the FQPA to lower or revoke them, the pesticide industry makes it very difficult for the EPA to lower tolerances and progress has slowed to a crawl. Even worse, some very-high pesticides are finding their way back on the market and into children’s food.”Government and industry assurances about the safety of pesticide residues in the U.S. food supply are based on the fact that most residues in food are below the applicable tolerance levels, Benbrook added.“But we now know, and can specifically identify hundreds of samples of food each year with below-tolerance residues that pose risks far above what the EPA regards as safe,” he said.“Action needs to be taken”The CR report says the dangers lurking on grocery stores shelves could be reduced by the elimination of two chemical classes – organophosphates and carbamates. While organophosphates are used in plastic and solvent manufacturing as well as pesticides, they are also constituents of nerve gas, and exposure – acute and long-term – can have a range of harmful impacts on people and animals. “EPA has known about the existence of thousands of excessively high tolerances since the 2000s." - Charles Benbrook, a pesticide residue expert and Consumer Reports consultant As the Illinois Department of Public Health explains: “Organophosphates kill insects by disrupting their brains and nervous systems. Unfortunately, these chemicals also can harm the brains and nervous systems of animals and humans.”Carbamates bear a chemical similarity to organophosphate pesticides.The CR report comes as many scientists have increasingly been questioning whether or not a steady diet of pesticide residues can actually be safe for people and what long-term consumption of trace amounts of pesticides in food could be doing to human and animal health.“The data is showing more and more that these lower levels are having an impact,” said Hansen. “That is why some action needs to be taken.”

This story was originally published in The New Lede, a journalism project of the Environmental Working Group, and is republished here with permission.Several types of fruits and vegetables generally considered to be healthy can contain levels of pesticide residues potentially unsafe for consumption, according to an analysis conducted by Consumer Reports (CR) released on Thursday.The report, which is based on seven years of data gathered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) as part of its annual pesticide residue reporting program, concluded that 20% of 59 different fruit and vegetable categories included in the analysis carried residue levels that posed “significant risks” to consumers of those foods.Those high-risk foods included bell peppers, blueberries, green beans, potatoes and strawberries, according to CR. The group found that some green beans even had residues of an insecticide called acephate, which has been banned for use on green beans by U.S. regulators since 2011. In one sample from 2022, levels of methamidophos (a breakdown product of acephate), were morethan 100 times the level CR scientists consider safe. In another sample, acephate levels were 7 times higher than CR considers safe.Overall, out of the nearly 30,000 total fruit and vegetable samples for which CR examined data, about 8% percent were deemed to have residues at “high risk or very high risk”. Imported produce was more likely to carry high levels of pesticide residues than domestically supplied foods, the report said, noting that residue levels can vary widely from sample to sample.The results “raise red flags,” according to CR. The report advises that children and pregnant women should consume less than a serving a day of high-risk fruits and vegetables, and less than half a serving per day of “very high-risk ones.”“People need to be concerned because we see that the more data we gather on pesticides, the more we realize the levels that we previously thought to be safe turn out not to be,” said Michael Hansen, a senior scientist at CR who was recently appointed to a USDA food safety advisory committee.The organization said the “good news” is that the data showed residues in most of the foods sampled, including 16 of 25 fruit categories and 21 of 34 vegetable types, presented “little to worry about.” Nearly all organic samples showed no concerning levels of pesticide residues.The report suggests consumers “try snap peas instead of green beans, cantaloupe in place of watermelon, cabbage or dark green lettuces for kale, and the occasional sweet potato instead of a white one.”Faulty safety assurances  In coming to its findings, CR said it analyzed USDA residue test results for 29,643 individual food samples and then rated the risk of each fruit or vegetable based on how many different pesticides were found in each, how frequently and at what levels the residues were found, and the toxicity for each pesticide detected.For pesticides known to be cancer-causing, neurotoxins or endocrine disruptors – chemicals that can alter the hormonal functions – CR added an extra safety margin requirement to the levels considered safe. “People need to be concerned because we see that the more data we gather on pesticides, the more we realize the levels that we previously thought to be safe turn out not to be." Michael Hansen, Consumer Reports The CR said its safety levels differ from those set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which establishes “maximum residue limits” (MRLs) for each crop use of a pesticide after developing a risk assessment that the agency says considers multiple factors, including aggregate exposure from the pesticides, cumulative effects of related pesticides, and potential increased increased susceptibility to infants and children. Based on the EPA’s MRLs, the USDA said in its most recent pesticide data program report that 99% of foods tested had residues within the safety limits. But the EPA’s limits are too high to be truly protective of public health, and do not adequately account for the risks associated with some pesticides, according to CR.“EPA stands by its comprehensive pesticide assessment and review process to ensure the safety of the U.S. food supply,” the agency said in a statement. “Since the pesticide registration review program started in 2006, EPA has cancelled some or all uses in nearly 25% of the conventional pesticide cases it has completed work on, where new science indicates a need for additional mitigations.” The EPA says it considers “all relevant data” in making human health risk assessments for pesticide use. It is common for many farmers to apply a range of pesticides, including herbicides, insecticides and fungicides, on their fields as a means to fight weeds, bugs and plant diseases. In some cases, they spray the chemicals directly over growing plants. Residues of these chemicals are found not only in food but often in drinking water as well. Both the Food and Drug Administration and the USDA have been tracking levels of pesticide residues in foods for decades, and have repeatedly assured the public that those residues are not a human health risk as long as they do not exceed the EPA’s MRLs. But those assurances have proven wrong in the past. In one example, the government long said the insecticide chlorpyrifos was safe to be used on food if residues were within the EPA’s established limits, despite strong scientific evidence that exposure could harm the brains and nervous systems of developing children.In 2015, after decades of use in agriculture, the EPA changed its stance, saying it could not determine if chlorpyrifos in the diet was actually safe, and proposed banning the pesticide from use in farming. It took until 2021 for the agency to issue a final rule banning the pesticide, and a court challenge to the ban has kept the chemical in use.Further undermining faith in the government’s assurance on pesticide residues is the fact that the EPA consults with the companies selling the chemicals in setting allowable residue levels, and those allowable levels can be increased at the request of the companies. The EPA has approved several increases allowed for residues of the weed killing chemical glyphosate, for instance. Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup herbicides, is classified as a probable human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer but the EPA considers it not likely to cause cancer.Industry influenceThe Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) requires the EPA to apply an additional tenfold safety margin to allowable exposure levels to account for the effects on vulnerable infants and children, and allows the agency to skip adding the safety margin “only if it will be safe for infants and children.” The agency has declined to apply that additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children when setting the legal levels for several pesticide residues, however, even when scientists have said it is needed.Pesticide manufacturers have successfully pushed the EPA not to apply the extra safety margin for dozens of pesticides that have “clear potential to damage DNA or disrupt development,” said Chuck Benbrook, a pesticide residue expert and a consultant on the CR report. “EPA has known about the existence of thousands of excessively high tolerances since the 2000s,” said Benbrook. “Despite the powerful new tools and mandate in the FQPA to lower or revoke them, the pesticide industry makes it very difficult for the EPA to lower tolerances and progress has slowed to a crawl. Even worse, some very-high pesticides are finding their way back on the market and into children’s food.”Government and industry assurances about the safety of pesticide residues in the U.S. food supply are based on the fact that most residues in food are below the applicable tolerance levels, Benbrook added.“But we now know, and can specifically identify hundreds of samples of food each year with below-tolerance residues that pose risks far above what the EPA regards as safe,” he said.“Action needs to be taken”The CR report says the dangers lurking on grocery stores shelves could be reduced by the elimination of two chemical classes – organophosphates and carbamates. While organophosphates are used in plastic and solvent manufacturing as well as pesticides, they are also constituents of nerve gas, and exposure – acute and long-term – can have a range of harmful impacts on people and animals. “EPA has known about the existence of thousands of excessively high tolerances since the 2000s." - Charles Benbrook, a pesticide residue expert and Consumer Reports consultant As the Illinois Department of Public Health explains: “Organophosphates kill insects by disrupting their brains and nervous systems. Unfortunately, these chemicals also can harm the brains and nervous systems of animals and humans.”Carbamates bear a chemical similarity to organophosphate pesticides.The CR report comes as many scientists have increasingly been questioning whether or not a steady diet of pesticide residues can actually be safe for people and what long-term consumption of trace amounts of pesticides in food could be doing to human and animal health.“The data is showing more and more that these lower levels are having an impact,” said Hansen. “That is why some action needs to be taken.”

The U.N. Is Running Out of Time to Draft This Plastics Treaty

In March 2022, U.N. delegates met in Ottawa and struck a historic agreement to produce, by the end of 2024, a legally binding treaty to “end plastic pollution.” “Plastic pollution has grown into an epidemic. With today’s resolution we are officially on track for a cure,” Espen Barth Eide, then Norway’s minister for climate and the environment, said at the time. Now, more than two years later, the mission looks dangerously close to derailing.Next week, when delegates reconvene in Ottawa, it will be their penultimate chance to achieve their stated goal (the final meeting is in November). “This meeting is, to a degree, make or break,” the International Pollutants Elimination Network’s Björn Beeler told Inside Climate News.Given the proliferation of plastics alternatives these days, you might think this treaty would be in the shrimp shell–derived sustainable bag, so to speak. Nope. A meeting in Nairobi in November 2023 ended with very little progress. Perhaps relatedly, as this newsletter noted at the time, the Center for International and Environmental Law tallied 143 fossil fuel and petrochemical industry lobbyists registered to attend that meeting. It’s not known yet how many have registered to attend next week’s.Since last November, several new reports have shed further light on the deception of the plastics industry. In February, the Center for Climate Integrity released a report on what it called a “decades-long campaign of fraud and deception about the recyclability of plastics,” as newly uncovered documents from trade group the Vinyl Institute explicitly acknowledged in the 1980s that “recycling cannot go on indefinitely, and does not solve the solid waste problem.”Last month, the Environmental Integrity Project announced another finding: that some $9 billion in U.S. taxpayer money has been used, via tax breaks and subsidies, to build plastics manufacturing facilities. Many of those facilities, in turn, have “repeatedly exceeded legal limits on the air pollution they release into surrounding communities, disproportionately affecting people of color,” DeSmog’s Sara Sneath wrote. Volatile organic compounds of the sort released by these plants have been “tied to a broad range of potential health impacts, from nosebleeds to cancer.”These two reports aren’t the first and won’t be the last to showcase the plastics industry’s bad faith or the catastrophic consequences of public credulity. But taken together, they’re a striking indictment of the position that reportedly tanked the talks in Nairobi in November. The basic problem then was that countries with big petrochemical industries, like the United States, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and China, opposed the idea of “binding provisions” for reducing plastic production, and in some cases explicitly advocated focusing on recycling instead.In light of these two reports, at least two things may be said about this position. First: Given that the plastics industry has admitted internally for decades that recycling doesn’t work, a recycling-first approach to plastic pollution is basically a pro-pollution stance. And second: While countries may value the wealth produced by their large fossil fuel industries, they also have ample evidence that these industries will not hesitate to take taxpayer money and, in return, poison taxpayers.Meanwhile, the political systems for addressing this problem are deeply dysfunctional. It’s not uncommon, in U.N. climate talks, for oil industry execs to actually be part of official governmental delegations for some countries. And in the U.S., even if a useful treaty does get drafted this year, a Trump victory in November “would likely impact how such an agreement gets implemented in the U.S. and ratchet up the already long odds that any final accord would be approved by the U.S. Senate,” E&E News reports. Still, kicking straight-up lobbyists out of the talks shouldn’t be too much to ask. U.N. member nations are well overdue in acknowledging what many credible news outlets have now reported, and what ought to be common sense: that plastics industry representatives are not disinterested parties here. Any sincere attempt to curb the global disaster of plastic pollution isn’t going to come from them.Good News/Bad NewsAs experts warn about plummeting biodiversity and California bans salmon fishing for a second year due to dwindling populations, The Guardian reports one small, potentially positive development in Europe: Around 500 barriers (think dams, fords, etc.) were removed from European waterways last year, helping to restore riparian ecosystems and allowing fish to travel upstream to breed. Researchers are expecting “the most spatially extensive global bleaching event on record” for the world’s coral, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration coal expert Derek Manzello tells The New York Times.Stat of the Week$150,000 per leaseThat’s the new price for drilling on federal lands, up from $10,000. The rule was finalized by the Bureau of Land Management on Friday, part of a big push to finalize environmental rules before President Biden’s term runs out.What I’m ReadingHow Fast Fashion Is Driving Land Grabs and Violence in BrazilWhile brands like H&M promote their cotton clothes as particularly sustainable, courtesy of the Better Cotton Initiative, environmental nonprofit Earthsight has cast doubt on that, Sophie Benson reports for Atmos. Earthsight examined two major cotton producers who export to manufacturers that make clothes for H&M and Zara:SLC and Horita Group stand accused of deforestation on a grand scale. In 2014, Bahia’s environmental agency Ibama found 25,153 hectares of illegal deforestation on Horita farms at Agronegócio Condomínio Cachoeira do Estrondo, a vast agribusiness estate, the report outlines. In 2020, the same agency stated it could find no permits for 11,700 hectares of deforestation carried out by the company between 2010 and 2018. Between 2002 and 2019, Horita Group’s owners were fined over 20 times for environmental violations, totalling $4.5 million. Meanwhile, three of SLC’s cotton farms lost at least 40,000 hectares of native Cerrado wilderness in the last 12 years, per Earthsight’s reporting. SLC has also been fined around $250,000 by Ibama since 2008 for environmental infractions in Bahia. Both companies are further alleged to have cleared land which has been legally earmarked for regeneration or preservation. Read Sophie Benson’s full report at Atmos.Earth.This article first appeared in Life in a Warming World, a weekly TNR newsletter authored by deputy editor Heather Souvaine Horn. Sign up here.

In March 2022, U.N. delegates met in Ottawa and struck a historic agreement to produce, by the end of 2024, a legally binding treaty to “end plastic pollution.” “Plastic pollution has grown into an epidemic. With today’s resolution we are officially on track for a cure,” Espen Barth Eide, then Norway’s minister for climate and the environment, said at the time. Now, more than two years later, the mission looks dangerously close to derailing.Next week, when delegates reconvene in Ottawa, it will be their penultimate chance to achieve their stated goal (the final meeting is in November). “This meeting is, to a degree, make or break,” the International Pollutants Elimination Network’s Björn Beeler told Inside Climate News.Given the proliferation of plastics alternatives these days, you might think this treaty would be in the shrimp shell–derived sustainable bag, so to speak. Nope. A meeting in Nairobi in November 2023 ended with very little progress. Perhaps relatedly, as this newsletter noted at the time, the Center for International and Environmental Law tallied 143 fossil fuel and petrochemical industry lobbyists registered to attend that meeting. It’s not known yet how many have registered to attend next week’s.Since last November, several new reports have shed further light on the deception of the plastics industry. In February, the Center for Climate Integrity released a report on what it called a “decades-long campaign of fraud and deception about the recyclability of plastics,” as newly uncovered documents from trade group the Vinyl Institute explicitly acknowledged in the 1980s that “recycling cannot go on indefinitely, and does not solve the solid waste problem.”Last month, the Environmental Integrity Project announced another finding: that some $9 billion in U.S. taxpayer money has been used, via tax breaks and subsidies, to build plastics manufacturing facilities. Many of those facilities, in turn, have “repeatedly exceeded legal limits on the air pollution they release into surrounding communities, disproportionately affecting people of color,” DeSmog’s Sara Sneath wrote. Volatile organic compounds of the sort released by these plants have been “tied to a broad range of potential health impacts, from nosebleeds to cancer.”These two reports aren’t the first and won’t be the last to showcase the plastics industry’s bad faith or the catastrophic consequences of public credulity. But taken together, they’re a striking indictment of the position that reportedly tanked the talks in Nairobi in November. The basic problem then was that countries with big petrochemical industries, like the United States, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and China, opposed the idea of “binding provisions” for reducing plastic production, and in some cases explicitly advocated focusing on recycling instead.In light of these two reports, at least two things may be said about this position. First: Given that the plastics industry has admitted internally for decades that recycling doesn’t work, a recycling-first approach to plastic pollution is basically a pro-pollution stance. And second: While countries may value the wealth produced by their large fossil fuel industries, they also have ample evidence that these industries will not hesitate to take taxpayer money and, in return, poison taxpayers.Meanwhile, the political systems for addressing this problem are deeply dysfunctional. It’s not uncommon, in U.N. climate talks, for oil industry execs to actually be part of official governmental delegations for some countries. And in the U.S., even if a useful treaty does get drafted this year, a Trump victory in November “would likely impact how such an agreement gets implemented in the U.S. and ratchet up the already long odds that any final accord would be approved by the U.S. Senate,” E&E News reports. Still, kicking straight-up lobbyists out of the talks shouldn’t be too much to ask. U.N. member nations are well overdue in acknowledging what many credible news outlets have now reported, and what ought to be common sense: that plastics industry representatives are not disinterested parties here. Any sincere attempt to curb the global disaster of plastic pollution isn’t going to come from them.Good News/Bad NewsAs experts warn about plummeting biodiversity and California bans salmon fishing for a second year due to dwindling populations, The Guardian reports one small, potentially positive development in Europe: Around 500 barriers (think dams, fords, etc.) were removed from European waterways last year, helping to restore riparian ecosystems and allowing fish to travel upstream to breed. Researchers are expecting “the most spatially extensive global bleaching event on record” for the world’s coral, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration coal expert Derek Manzello tells The New York Times.Stat of the Week$150,000 per leaseThat’s the new price for drilling on federal lands, up from $10,000. The rule was finalized by the Bureau of Land Management on Friday, part of a big push to finalize environmental rules before President Biden’s term runs out.What I’m ReadingHow Fast Fashion Is Driving Land Grabs and Violence in BrazilWhile brands like H&M promote their cotton clothes as particularly sustainable, courtesy of the Better Cotton Initiative, environmental nonprofit Earthsight has cast doubt on that, Sophie Benson reports for Atmos. Earthsight examined two major cotton producers who export to manufacturers that make clothes for H&M and Zara:SLC and Horita Group stand accused of deforestation on a grand scale. In 2014, Bahia’s environmental agency Ibama found 25,153 hectares of illegal deforestation on Horita farms at Agronegócio Condomínio Cachoeira do Estrondo, a vast agribusiness estate, the report outlines. In 2020, the same agency stated it could find no permits for 11,700 hectares of deforestation carried out by the company between 2010 and 2018. Between 2002 and 2019, Horita Group’s owners were fined over 20 times for environmental violations, totalling $4.5 million. Meanwhile, three of SLC’s cotton farms lost at least 40,000 hectares of native Cerrado wilderness in the last 12 years, per Earthsight’s reporting. SLC has also been fined around $250,000 by Ibama since 2008 for environmental infractions in Bahia. Both companies are further alleged to have cleared land which has been legally earmarked for regeneration or preservation. Read Sophie Benson’s full report at Atmos.Earth.This article first appeared in Life in a Warming World, a weekly TNR newsletter authored by deputy editor Heather Souvaine Horn. Sign up here.

No Results today.

Our news is updated constantly with the latest environmental stories from around the world. Reset or change your filters to find the most active current topics.

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.