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

How little plastic does it take to kill marine animals? Scientists have answers

Ocean plastic kills sea creatures. For the first time, researchers set out to find out how much it takes. The answer: Surprisingly little.

Ocean plastic kills sea creatures. It can obstruct, perforate or twist their airways and gastrointestinal tracts.Now new research shows it takes just 6 pieces of ingested rubber the size of a pencil eraser to kill most sea birds. For marine mammals, 29 pieces of any kind of plastic — hard, soft, rubber or fishing equipment — is often lethal.It’s the first time researchers have quantified how much and what kind of plastic — soft, hard, rubber or fishing debris — is needed to kill a bird, marine mammal or a turtle. “I think the lethal doses that we saw were smaller than I expected,” said Erin Murphy, a researcher with the Ocean Conservancy and the department of ecology and evolution at the University of Toronto.“Seeing the particularly small thresholds for rubber and seabirds, for example, that just six pieces of rubber, each smaller on average than the size of a pea was enough to kill 90% of sea birds that ingested it ... That was particularly surprising to me,” she said.The sea birds were less sensitive to hard plastic: It’d take 25 pieces of the pea-sized hard plastic pieces to ensure a 90% chance of dying. Murphy and her colleagues from the University of Tasmania, in Australia, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, also from Australia, and the Universidade Federal de Alagoas, in Brazil, published their study Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academies of Science.For decades, researchers have been documenting death by plastic in marine animals. They have reported it in the gastrointestinal tracts of nearly 1,300 marine species — including every species of sea turtle, and in every family of seabird and marine mammal family.The team analyzed data from 10,412 published necropsies, or animal autopsy reports. Of the animals studied, 1,306 were sea turtles representing all seven species of sea turtles; 1,537 were seabirds representing 57 species; and 7,569 were marine mammals across 31 species. They found that 35% of the dead seabirds, 12% of marine mammals and 47% of sea turtles examined had ingested plastic. Seabirds seemed to be particularly sensitive to rubber. For marine mammals, soft plastics — such as plastic bags — and fishing debris was most harmful. For sea turtles, their kryptonite was hard and soft plastics.“This was severe trauma or damage to the GI tract, or blockage of the stomach or intestines from plastic... and so these were physical harms that you could see, that you could see in the gut of these animals, and that were reported by scientists,” said Murphy describing the reports. The paper did not look at other ways plastic can kill marine animals — strangulation, entanglement and drowning. Nor did it look at malnutrition or toxicity caused by eating plastic.“So, this is likely an underestimate of the impacts of ingestion, and it’s definitely an underestimate of the lethality of plastics more broadly,” said Murphy.Nearly half the animals in their analysis were threatened or endangered species. More than 11 million metric tonnes — or more than 24 billion pounds — of plastic enters the world’s oceans every year, according to several environmental and industry reports. That’s a garbage truck’s worth dumped every minute.According to the United Nations, that number is expected to triple in the next twenty years. “I find this piece a brilliant contribution to the field,” said Greg Merrill, a researcher with the Duke University Marine Lab, who did not participate in the study.“We have thousands of examples of marine animals ingesting plastic debris. But for a number of reasons, eg. lack of data, difficulty of conducting laboratory-based experiments, and ethical considerations, risk assessments are really challenging to conduct,” he said in an email. Such assessments are crucial for actually linking plastic ingestion to mortality, because “once we know some of those thresholds, they can help policy makers make informed decisions,” said Merrill.And that’s what Murphy said she and her co-authors are hoping for: That lawmakers and others can use this information to reduce plastic, by crafting regulations to ban or reduce plastics, such as plastic bag or balloon bans, and encouraging small, local events such as beach clean ups.“The science is clear: We need to reduce the amount of plastic that we’re producing and we need to improve collection and recycling to clean up what’s already out there,” said Murphy. Earlier this year, in internationals talks on limiting plastic pollution, oil and gas producing countries succeeded in preventing language that would reduce the amount of plastics produced.

Trump proposes to narrow where Clean Water Act applies

The Trump administration is proposing to narrow which bodies of water qualify for Clean Water Act protections. The administration proposed a new definition Monday for what counts as a “water of the United States” and is therefore subject to federal pollution regulations under the Clean Water Act. The issue is a controversial one, with developers,...

The Trump administration is proposing to narrow which bodies of water qualify for Clean Water Act protections.  The administration on Monday proposed a new definition for what counts as a “water of the United States” and is therefore subject to federal pollution regulations under the Clean Water Act. The issue is a controversial one, with developers, farmers and others calling for including fewer bodies of water to make it easier for them to operate. Environmental activists, however, argue that more bodies of water deserve protection in order to prevent pollution that can flow to important waters. “There will be less that will be regulated by the federal government,” Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin told reporters. Waters of the U.S. require permits for pollution, as well as activities such as filling and dredging. Those that are not so classified may not require permits.  In general, large, permanent bodies of water such as oceans and lakes are considered waters of the U.S., but wetlands and streams have been more contentious. DEVELOPING… Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Nuclear-Waste Arks Are a Bold Experiment in Protecting Future Generations

Designing nuclear-waste repositories is part engineering, part anthropology—and part mythmaking

This article is part of a package in collaboration with Forbes on time capsules, preserving information and communicating with the future. Read more from the report.IGNACE, Ontario, C.E. 51,500—Feloo, a hunter, chews a strip of roasted caribou flank, washing it down with water from a nearby lake. Her boots press into thin soil that, each summer, thaws into a sodden marsh above frozen ground. Caribou herds drift across the tundra, nibbling lichen and calving on the open flats. Hooves sink into moss beds; antlers scrape dwarf shrubs. Overhead, migratory birds wheel and squawk before winging south. Two lakes remain liquid year-round, held open by hidden taliks—oases of water in a frozen land. Beneath it all lies the Canadian Shield: a billion-year-old granite craton, a basement of rock, scarred by ice, that has endured glaciation after glaciation. In 10 or 15 millennia, Feloo’s world will vanish beneath three kilometers of advancing ice.Feloo is unaware that 500 meters below her feet rests an ancestral deposit of copper, steel, clay and radioactive debris. Long ago, this land was called Canada. Here a group known as the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) built a deep geological repository to contain spent nuclear fuel—the byproducts of reactors that once powered Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick. The vault was engineered to isolate long-lived radionuclides such as uranium 235, which has a half-life that exceeds 700 million years—sealing them away from war, disaster, neglect, sabotage and curiosity for as long as human foresight could reach.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.NWMO issued reports with titles such as Postclosure Safety Assessment of a Used Fuel Repository in Crystalline Rock. These studies modeled future boreal forests and tundra ecosystems, simulating the waxing and waning of vast glacial ice sheets across successive ice ages. They envisioned the lifeways of self-sufficient hunters, fishers and farmers who might one day inhabit the region—and even the remote possibility of a far-future drill crew inadvertently breaching the buried canisters.Feloo was born into a world that has remembered none of this. Records of the repository were lost in the global drone wars of C.E. 2323. All that endured were the stories of Mishipeshu, the horned water panther said to dwell beneath the lakes—and to punish those who dig too deep. Some of Feloo’s companions dismiss the legend; others whisper that the earth below still burns with poison. Yet every step she takes is haunted by choices made tens of millennia before—when Canada undertook the Promethean task of safeguarding a future it could scarcely imagine.In 2024 NWMO announced that Canada’s deep geological repository for spent nuclear fuel would be built in the granite formations of northwestern Ontario, near the Township of Ignace and the Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation. The decision capped off a 14-year siting effort that solicited volunteer host communities and guaranteed them the right to withdraw at any stage of the process. NWMO is now preparing for a comprehensive regulatory review, which will include a licensing process conducted by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. This means the development of impact assessments that will be specific to the Ignace site. NWMO has also pledged an Indigenous-led regulatory process alongside federal oversight, with the Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation conducting its own assessments to ensure the project reflects Anishinaabe principles of ecological stewardship. If approvals proceed, construction could begin in the 2030s, and the repository could go into operation in the 2040s.A deep-time repository, like a deep-space probe, must endure without maintenance or intervention, independently carrying human intent into the far future.A deep geological repository can be seen as a reverse ark: a vessel designed not to carry valuables forward in time but to seal dangerous legacies away from historical memory. Or it can be understood as a reverse mine: an effort returning hazardous remnants to the Earth rather than extracting resources from it. Either way it is more than just a feat of engineering. Repository projects weave together scientific reasoning, intergenerational ethics and community preferences in decisions that are meant to endure longer than empires. As messages to future versions of ourselves, they compel their designers to ask: What symbols, stories or institutions might bridge epochs? And what does it mean that we are trying to protect future humans who may exist only in our imaginations?I am a cultural anthropologist. From 2012 to 2014 I spent 32 months living in Finland, conducting fieldwork among the safety assessment teams for Onkalo—an underground complex that is likely to become the world’s first operational deep geological repository for spent nuclear fuel. The teams’ work involved modeling far-future glaciations, earthquakes, floods, erosion, permafrost and even hypothetical human and animal populations tens of millennia ahead. That research became the basis for Deep Time Reckoning, a book exploring how nuclear-waste experts’ long-range planning practices can be retooled as blueprints for safeguarding future worlds in other domains, from climate adaptation to biodiversity preservation.During the Biden administration, I joined the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Spent Fuel and High-Level Waste Disposition, where I helped advance participatory siting processes modeled on approaches that had proven successful in Finland and Canada. I served as federal manager of the DOE’s Consent-Based Siting Consortia—a nationwide coalition of 12 project teams from universities, nonprofits and the private sector that were tasked with fostering community engagement with nuclear waste management. Through it all, I came to see repository programs as civilizational experiments in long-term responsibility: collective efforts to extend the time horizons of governance and care so that shared futures may be protected far beyond the scale of any single lifetime or institution.An enduring question for all repository programs is whether—and, if so, how—to mark their sites and archive knowledge about them. There is no guarantee that the languages we speak today will remain intelligible even a few thousand years from now. Beowulf, written in an earlier form of English a millennium or so ago, already reads like a foreign tongue. The meanings of symbols drift just as unpredictably. A skull and crossbones, for instance, may denote poison, death, rebirth—or pirates—depending on culture and context. What, then, might a nuclear waste repository signify to people tens of millennia from now? How long can a warning sign, monument, or archive preserve the meanings we attach to it today? Or should we abandon the illusion of communicating with future humans like Feloo altogether—and instead build repositories that are meant to be forgotten?Nuclear organizations rely on familiar techniques to preserve institutional memory: documentation mandates, digital databases, mentoring pipelines, program redundancy, succession planning. Such mechanisms can sustain continuity for decades, even centuries—but their limits become clear when stretched across millennia. Archives can burn. Technologies can decay into obsolescence. Institutions can falter under political or economic upheaval. And today a new litany of planetary risks crowds the horizon: thermonuclear war, weaponized synthetic biology, climate-driven migrations, institutional collapse, even runaway artificial superintelligence.As NWMO prepares for construction in Ignace in the 2030s, the question of long-term communication must increasingly shift from theory to practice. Canada has participated in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Nuclear Energy Agency’s Preservation of Records, Knowledge and Memory initiative, which has explored strategies ranging from warning markers to staged transfers of responsibility across generations. In a 2017 safety report, NWMO wisely conceded a limit: “repository records and markers (and passive societal memory) are assumed sufficient to ensure that inadvertent intrusion would not occur for at least 300 ... years.” Beyond that horizon, the premise changes. No monument, land-use restriction, monitoring system or archive can be trusted to endure indefinitely.Different countries have embraced different philosophies of how to safeguard nuclear waste repositories across centuries and millennia—and how and whether to try to send messages to those who, like Feloo, may one day live above them.The U.S. is home to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), a deep geological repository carved into ancient salt beds in New Mexico. WIPP stores transuranic waste from the nation’s nuclear weapons programs. In the 1980s and 1990s, task forces convened scientists, artists, science-fiction writers and semioticians to design warning systems that were intended to deter drill crews or archaeologists living thousands of years in the future. Their proposals were dramatic: vast fields of concrete thorns bristling from the desert floor; monolithic slabs etched with multilingual warnings (“this place is not a place of honor ... nothing valued is here”); and signage depicting the anguished face of Edvard Munch’s The Scream. Some envisioned a quasi-religious “atomic priesthood” to preserve the warning through ritual. Others suggested bioengineered “ray cats” whose fur would fluoresce near radiation—accompanied by myths, songs and proverbs to ensure that unborn generations would know to flee.Finland’s Onkalo repository embodies a somewhat different a philosophy. Anticipating the future loss of institutional control and memory of the repository, Onkalo was designed to remain secure for millennia in the absence of monumental communication systems. As in Canada, the lack of exploitable resources in the granite bedrock is meant to deter future prospectors. Once its tunnels are packed with copper canisters and bentonite clay, Onkalo will be backfilled and sealed for perpetuity on a small, unassuming islet in the Baltic Sea sometime in the 2120s. The danger is to be buried so completely that there will be nothing left to remember: no attention-grabbing monoliths to tempt curiosity, no symbols to be misread. When I conducted anthropological fieldwork in Finland, some scientists likened the project to launching a probe into interstellar space: years of meticulous planning and testing culminating in a single, irrevocable release. After that, no repair or recall is possible. A deep-time repository, like a deep-space probe, must endure without maintenance or intervention, independently carrying human intent into the far future.Even the mightiest empires have cycled through collapse and renewal, through forgetting and rediscovery.France has charted a third path with its Cigéo repository, planned in the Callovo-Oxfordian clay of its northeastern departments of Meuse and Haute-Marne. A 2016 law requires Cigéo to remain reversible for at least a century after operations begin. In practice, reversibility means retrievability: the inbuilt capacity to recover waste packages from the underground deposition cells. Advocates see this as a balance between long-term containment and intergenerational agency: the idea that future citizens should retain the right to revisit, or even overturn, choices made today. This logic resonates with those who view spent nuclear fuel as a future resource more than a liability. Jenifer Schafer, an associate director for technology at the DOE’s Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy, has argued that “nuclear treasure” may be a more fitting term than “nuclear waste,” as the fissile materials inside it could someday power future innovations in nuclear reactor design. From this perspective, burying spent nuclear fuel too conclusively risks foreclosing possibilities that future generations might prefer to keep open.Taken together, these examples reveal how differently societies imagine their obligations to the far future. The American strategy reflected a lingering cold-war-era faith—tinged with hubris—in design ingenuity to frighten descendants away. The Finnish plan entrusted geology with the work of erasure, even if humans’ memory were to lapse as the landscape quietly reclaimed the site. The French framework preserved the right of future citizens to reject the decisions of today. Canada still has regulatory milestones and First Nations approvals to meet before NWMO can break ground at Ignace. In the decades ahead, however, it, too, will have to specify how it will stage its approach to intergenerational communication.What is certain, though, is that NWMO’s deep geological disposal efforts will unfold not only as a technical project but also as a cultural statement—a statement about care across generations, the limits of understanding across difference and the moral responsibilities of present-day Canadians to those not yet born. Like all repository efforts, NWMO’s work in Ignace will serve as a mirror: a message not only to the future but also to the present, reflecting what we choose to remember, what we choose to forget and how we hope to be remembered ourselves.As NWMO refines its approach to remembering, forgetting and communicating with societies of the future, it would do well to look beyond the nuclear industry for inspiration.Japan’s Kongō Gumi construction firm, founded in C.E. 578, operated independently for more than 1,400 years before it became part of the Takamatsu Construction Group in 2006. Adapting across vast social and political transformations, the Catholic Church, France’s Hôtel-Dieu hospital (C.E. 651) and Morocco’s University of al-Qarawiyyin (C.E. 859) have each endured for more than a millennium. Bali’s subak irrigation system, established in the ninth century, continues to flourish through a network of water temples that unite ecological engineering with Hindu philosophy and ritual. In New Mexico, three-century-old acequia canals still function under community governance, with elected mayordomos overseeing water sharing through collective labor. In Australia, the Brewarrina fish traps have been maintained across countless generations of Aboriginal peoples. What principles of intergenerational adaptation, renewal or continuity might NWMO glean from such long-lived systems?The Memory of Mankind (MoM) project in Austria could also be instructive. MoM’s mission is to preserve a snapshot of human civilization for the distant future, a cultural time capsule designed to outlast war, decay and digital obsolescence. Deep inside the Hallstatt salt mine, MoM stores ceramic tablets engraved with texts and images engineered to resist heat, radiation, chemicals and water. Its archive includes everything from scholarly works to recipes and personal stories. Led by ceramist Martin Kunze, MoM represents a philosophy of strategic redundancy. To guard against loss, Kunze distributes miniature tablets worldwide, each etched with maps pointing back to the Hallstatt archive—a physical embodiment of a principle articulated by the digital-preservation project LOCKSS: “Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe.” What might it mean for Canada to apply that same principle to the challenge of nuclear memory?Indigenous cultures offer another paradigm of long-term message endurance: storytelling as recordkeeping. Aboriginal Australian oral histories recount volcanic eruptions in western Victoria that align with geological evidence dating back nearly 37,000 years. Narratives describing islands drowned by rising seas have likewise been corroborated by climate science. Such traditions demonstrate that oral knowledge of environmental change can persist across timescales that far exceed those of our most advanced digital media, which often decay or become unreadable within decades. What might NWMO learn from cultural systems of memory grounded in ceremony, cosmology and story transmission?If built properly, NWMO’s deep geological repository will outlast governments, economies and the very languages that name it. It will join a global lineage of reverse arks: monuments to societies that dared to think beyond themselves. If the facility is someday uncovered by a far-future archaeologist, its depth, placement and engineered barriers could reveal what our civilization judged to be dangerous, how we calculated risk and how we imagined future humans would think, live and interpret signs. Yet scientific literacy cannot be assumed across deep time. Even the mightiest empires have cycled through collapse and renewal, through forgetting and rediscovery. To posterity, a nuclear waste repository might be read as a sacred monument, an extraterrestrial stronghold, a strange geological formation, a chamber of forgotten gods—or something beyond our present-day imagination altogether.In the end, Canada’s proposed Ignace repository will be an artifact of our own self-understanding: stone and metal fashioned into a signal meant to traverse vast orders of time. Its interpretation will belong solely to the future—to whatever beings, human or otherwise, may one day unearth what we once chose to hide.

See how this wolf steals fish, a new discovery of animals using tools

Video from the coast of British Columbia may be the first documented instance of a wild wolf using a tool, according to the researchers who published it on Monday.

The wolf seemed to know exactly what she was doing.She dove into the water, fetched a fishing float and brought it to shore. She then waded back in and tugged on a rope connected to the float. She pulled and backed up, pulled and backed up, until a crab trap emerged. When it was within easy reach, she tore it open and consumed the bait inside.Subscribe for unlimited access to The PostYou can cancel anytime.SubscribeThe scene, caught on camera on the coast of British Columbia in May 2024, may be the first documented instance of a wild wolf using a tool, according to the scientists who published the footage in the journal Ecology and Evolution on Monday.Although the intelligence of wolves is well known, the discovery adds to an expanding list of animals capable of manipulating tools to forage for food, a trait once thought to be unique to humans.“It’s not a surprise they have the capacity to do this,” said Kyle Artelle, an ecologist with the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry who published the footage. “Yet our jaw dropped when we saw the video.”The discovery also solved a mystery.People of the Heiltsuk Nation in central British Columbia had been puzzled about what was foiling their efforts to capture invasive green crabs along their shores.The crabs are a real problem — they eat through eelgrass that harbors marine life and they devastate the native clam, herring and salmon populations the tribe relies on for food. But the traps people were setting with herring and other bait kept getting damaged. Sometimes, there were just minor tears in the nets. Other times, the entire trap was torn to shreds.Some of the traps were set so deep that, at first, researchers thought the thief must be an otter, seal or other marine mammal. William Housty, director of the Heiltsuk Integrated Resource Management Department, wondered whether tourists were tampering with them. The Heiltsuk Nation worked with Artelle to set up a trail camera to record the perpetrator.A day after the camera was installed, it recorded the female wolf in action.The efficiency with which she snagged the bait — in just three minutes — suggested to Artelle that the animal had done this before.“She’s staring exactly at the trap. Every motion she does is perfectly tailored to getting that trap out as quickly as possible,” said Artelle.In February, the team recorded a second video of a different wolf pulling a line attached to a partially submerged trap. The camera shut off before it could show whether the animal had learned to finish the job and eat the bait. But afterward, two traps were seen on the shore with their bait cups removed.The “weight of evidence,” Artelle said, suggests the female wolf or her full pack are responsible for the pilfering.The tribal territory in British Columbia is a rare place where wolves remain unharassed by hunters, potentially giving them time to learn.“We’ve always maintained a very respectful relationship with the wolves up here in the territory,” Housty said. The oral history of his people, he added, talks of a time when humans and wolves could shape-shift between one another.Researchers have seen tool use in captive canines before. Dingoes, for instance, have been observed opening latches and moving small tables to reach food at a sanctuary in Australia. And pets owners are familiar with the inventiveness of dogs, which can carry hockey pucks in plastic flying discs and move chairs to reach food.Biologists are witnessing more and more animals brandishing tools. Crows maneuver sticks in their beaks to collect grub from crevices. Pandas grab bamboo to scratch their bodies. Octopuses wield the severed tentacles of other animals as makeshift weapons to ward off predators.The wolf video raises a philosophical question: What does it mean to use a tool? Does the animal have to make the tool, as crows do when shortening sticks and peeling off their bark so they fit into crannies? Or can we call an animal a “tool user” if it uses an existing tool, as the wolf did with the rope?“I’m speaking to you on Zoom right now. I did not design this computer. I don’t know how it works, but I’m ‘using’ it, right?” Artelle asked.He said he hopes adding wolves to the list of tool-using animals will prompt some people to see them in a different light — the way public appreciation of chimpanzees grew after Jane Goodall discovered the primates dipping blades of grass into termite mounds to eat the insects.It is “an intelligence that is so familiar to us,” Artelle said. “For better or for worse, as humans, we tend to afford more care and compassion to other people or other species that we see most like us.”

Doug Peacock, the real ‘George Hayduke,’ Looks Back on 50 Years of The Monkey Wrench Gang

Now a famed grizzly conservationist, Peacock served as Edward Abbey’s inspiration for the novel’s most pivotal, piercing character. The post Doug Peacock, the real ‘George Hayduke,’ Looks Back on 50 Years of The Monkey Wrench Gang appeared first on The Revelator.

Half a century ago, a lyrical and passionate philosopher named Edward Abbey published a novel that would help define a generation. The Monkey Wrench Gang supercharged a secretive movement to preserve the remaining American wilderness from devastating overdevelopment and corporate exploitation through targeted acts of violence against machines. The book, which remains painfully relevant to the ongoing environmental crises facing the planet, has recently been re-released in a commemorative anniversary edition. “A 50th anniversary of The Monkey Wrench Gang couldn’t be timelier,” says Abbey’s friend and colleague Doug Peacock, who inspired the character of George Washington Hayduke in the novel. “Our American wilderness, Ed’s and my favorite shared value, has never been in greater peril, and so the book’s theme of challenging authority at every turn really hits the bullseye. We live in a scorching era of biological extinctions. Climate change by itself could take everything out.” Now 83 years old, Peacock wrote the introduction to the new edition of the novel. A distinguished author, filmmaker, and conservationist, he has dedicated his life to the preservation of grizzly bears and the “trophic cascade” of spiraling ecological benefits the bears provide throughout their constricted range. (Disclosure: Funk worked as communications director for Peacock’s former startup, Save the Yellowstone Grizzly.) A Fictional Character Birthed in Genuine Trauma Peacock met Abbey in 1969, shortly after his discharge from the Green Berets during the Vietnam War. “I saw a lot of Ed Abbey in Tucson back then,” Peacock reflects. “I wasn’t a writer yet, but I was a character.” Such a character, in fact, that Peacock immediately stood out in a crowd. His anarchic instincts, incited by his combat experiences and coupled with his having partially recovered from post-traumatic stress disorder through profound encounters with grizzly bears in the wild, made him a unique persona — one that would fit perfectly into what would become The Monkey Wrench Gang. In the novel, four contrarians band together and suppress their differences for a shared and singular mission: thwarting the unchecked destruction of their beloved desert landscapes. Led by the furious and untiring Green Beret medic George Hayduke, the gang plans a sweeping campaign of industrial sabotage in desert country. Abbey’s novel is largely built around this singular character, who eagerly puts the violent wrench into the gang’s monkey business. Hayduke’s struggles with what later became known as PTSD were mirrored in Peacock. “Looking back,” Peacock reflects now, “Abbey probably did me a favor in creating a caricature of myself whose dim psyche I could penetrate when my own seemed off-limits. Ed painted the ex-Green Beret Hayduke with precise brushstrokes as caught in an emotional backwater, an eddy out of whose currents I wanted to swim. The only thing worse than reading your own press was becoming someone else’s fiction.” The other three members of the gang, says Peacock, were also based on friends of his in the Southwest: Seldom Seen Smith was built around the late activist and river runner Ken Sleight. Doc Sarvis “is mostly as far as I’m concerned Ed Abbey, especially when he spouts out his philosophy and little nuggets of wisdom — that’s really Ed.” Bonnie Abbzug was modeled after Ingrid Eisenstadter, a recent contributor to The Revelator, whom Peacock notes “was a handful, not just in fiction. That was really her.” Peacock later recounted his own story in the harrowing 1990 book Grizzly Years: In Search of the American Wilderness. In 2009 The Atlantic released a short documentary about him under the same title: ‘Wilderness Is the Glue’ After returning from Vietnam, Peacock says, he went straight into the wilderness. “I didn’t want to work for anyone or have troubles with the authorities, so I lived in the woods,” Peacock recalls. “I like autonomy and I took it to the extreme when I got back from Vietnam.” He spent most of his time in Yellowstone and Glacier national parks, “and you absolutely could not find me. I lived the life of an outlaw, far from any authority, and took anarchy to the extreme, hidden in the wilderness. I love freedom, and my feelings fit right into Abbey’s rather formal libertarian philosophy that permeates The Monkey Wrench Gang.” They found particular common ground on environmental issues. “Defending the wilderness is really the glue that cemented me with Ed.” Peacock’s insular need for a kind of absolute personal liberty, begun as an aching promise to himself while serving overseas, happened to fit neatly with Abbey’s own philosophical beliefs. Abbey wrote his master’s thesis at the University of New Mexico on anarchy, that ultimate expression of chaotic self-governance, and dedicated The Monkey Wrench Gang to the late 18th-century English reactionary and later Romantic icon Ned Ludd, who launched a populist sabotage campaign against the encroaching Industrial Revolution. In his novel Abbey makes the reader confront and question assumptions about the kinds of people behind the current economy’s ultimate, inevitable toll on our communal natural landscapes. And to bring the fight to them. Radical Rebirth The Monkey Wrench Gang was published in a time of social unrest and political turmoil that somehow seems minor compared to today’s unceasing partisan mayhem. But it struck a chord at the time, and many young people took this novel’s message to heart. Readers have credited the book with sparking the creation of Earth First! and other “radical environmentalist” groups who deflated industrial truck tires to stymy commerce, burned billboards to restore the natural view, spiked trees to prevent logging, and otherwise did what little is possible to take some kind of stand against blind, rampaging overdevelopment. “It was the beginning of radical environmentalism,” Peacock tells me. A Message That Still Resonates Peacock, who has spent a lifetime writing books and making documentaries about his dedication to preserving grizzly bears, sees our present political moment of absolute and almost fanatical obedience to the wishes of ultrarich oil, gas, coal, and timber industries as the tragically perfect time for this reintroduction to an unlikely cabal that refused to let the world die around them. Indeed, the sycophantic corporate atmosphere we’re living in today is different from any other in modern U.S. history. From handing over public lands to private extractive interests to ignoring scientific realities on climate and aggressively seeking to remove vital protections for endangered species, the Trump administration proudly proclaims its unprecedented contempt for what allows the United States to be what it was founded to be — wild and free. The categorically contrasting but equally devoted characters of The Monkey Wrench Gang embody the American belief in pushing past seemingly impenetrable boundaries by working together, by risking it all for common ideals, and by regularly squabbling and then reconciling. Out of a shared sense of duty. This book reminds us today that when all else fails, there’s always the option of rebellious attempts at sabotage to cut through the agitprop and draw attention to an enduring and genuinely apolitical value: preserving what remains of our wilderness. Together. After all, as Peacock says, “The principles and anger behind The Monkey Wrench Gang are still with us, and still with me.” Previously in The Revelator: In Understory, An Ecologist Reflects on the Grief of Losing Nature The post Doug Peacock, the real ‘George Hayduke,’ Looks Back on 50 Years of The Monkey Wrench Gang appeared first on The Revelator.

AI is guzzling energy for slop content – could it be reimagined to help the climate?

Some experts think AI could be used to lower, rather than raise, planet-heating emissions – others aren’t so convinced Cop30: click here for full Guardian coverage of the climate talks in BrazilArtificial intelligence is often associated with ludicrous amounts of electricity, and therefore planet-heating emissions, expended to create nonsensical or misleading slop that is of meagre value to humanity.Some AI advocates at a major UN climate summit are posing an alternative view, though – what if AI could help us solve, rather than worsen, the climate crisis? Continue reading...

Artificial intelligence is often associated with ludicrous amounts of electricity, and therefore planet-heating emissions, expended to create nonsensical or misleading slop that is of meagre value to humanity.Some AI advocates at a major UN climate summit are posing an alternative view, though – what if AI could help us solve, rather than worsen, the climate crisis?The “AI for good” argument has been made repeatedly at the Cop30 talks in Belém, Brazil, with supporters arguing AI can be used to lower, rather than raise, emissions through a series of efficiencies that can spread through areas of our lives such as food, transport and energy that cause much of the pollution dangerously heating our planet.Last week, a coalition of groups, UN bodies and the Brazilian government unveiled the AI Climate Institute, a new global initiative aimed at fostering AI “as a tool of empowerment” in developing countries to help them tackle environmental problems.Proponents say the program, in time, will help educate countries on how to use AI in an array of ways to bring down emissions, such as better optimizing public transit, organizing agricultural systems and recalibrating the energy grid so that renewables are deployed at the right times.Even weather forecasting, including the mapping of impending climate-driven disasters such as flooding and wildfires, can be improved in this way, according to Maria João Sousa, executive director, Climate Change AI, one of the groups behind the new initiative.“Very few places in the world actually run numerical weather prediction models because numerical weather prediction models are very compute-intensive,” she said. “I definitely believe (AI) is a positive force to accelerate a lot of these things.”AI can help monitor emissions, biodiversity and generally see what is going on, said Lorenzo Saa, chief sustainability officer at Clarity AI, who is also attending Cop30.“You can really start looking at where the problem is,” he said. “Then you can predict, and the prediction is actually short-term and long-term. You can now predict floods in the next week, but you can actually figure out sea level rise and things like that.”Saa admitted there are legitimate concerns about the governance of AI and its impact upon society but, on balance, the effect on the environment could be positive. In June, a report by the London School of Economics had an unexpectedly sunny estimate – AI could reduce global greenhouse gases by 3.2bn to 5.4bn tonnes in the next decade, even factoring in its vast energy consumption.“People already make dumb decisions about energy, such as running air conditioning for too long,” Saa said. “How much of our phone has bad stuff for us? I think a lot. How many hours do we spend on Instagram?“My view of this is that society is going to go in this direction. We need to think about how we are not destroying the planet with heating and we’re actually trying to make sure that there’s a net benefit.”Some other experts and environmental advocates are not convinced. The huge computational power of AI, particularly generative AI, is fueling a boom in data centers in countries such as the US that is gobbling up a huge amount of electricity and water, even in places prone to droughts, pushing up electricity bills in some places as a result.The climate cost of this AI gold rush, driven by companies such as Google, Meta and OpenAI, is large and set to get larger – a recent Cornell University study found that by 2030, the current rate of AI growth in the US will add up to 44m tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, the equivalent of adding 10m gasoline cars to the road or the entire annual emissions of Norway.“People have this techno-utopian view of AI that it will save us from the climate crisis,” said Jean Su, a climate campaigner at the Center for Biological Diversity. “We know what will save us from the climate crisis – phasing out fossil fuels. It’s not AI.”Also, while AI can be used to drive efficiencies to lower emissions, the same sort of tools can be used to optimize other areas – including fossil fuel production. A report last month by Wood Mackenzie estimated that AI could help unlock an extra trillion barrels of oil – a scenario which, if the energy markets were to be amenable to such a thing, would obliterate any hopes of restraining catastrophic climate breakdown.Natascha Hospedales, lead lawyer for AI at Client Earth, said there is some merit to the “AI for good” argument, but that it is a “really small niche” within a much larger industry that is much more focused on maximizing profits.“There is some truth that AI could help the developing world, but much of this is in the early stage and some of it is hypothetical – it’s just not there yet,” she said. “Overall we are very, very far from a situation where AI for good balances out the negative environmental impact of AI.“The environmental cost of AI is already alarming and I don’t see data center growth winding down any time soon. A small percentage of AI is used for good and 99% of it is companies like Google and Meta lining their pockets with money, damaging the environment and human rights as they do it.”

Federal Cash for Lead Pipe Replacement Isn’t Making It to Illinois Communities

This story, a partnership between Grist, Inside Climate News, and Chicago-area public radio station WBEZ, is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. Lead pipes are ubiquitous. At this point, no state has gotten rid of all of its toxic lead service lines, which pipe drinking water to homes and businesses. But some cities like Chicago, New York […]

This story, a partnership between Grist, Inside Climate News, and Chicago-area public radio station WBEZ, is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. Lead pipes are ubiquitous. At this point, no state has gotten rid of all of its toxic lead service lines, which pipe drinking water to homes and businesses. But some cities like Chicago, New York City, and Detroit have more lead plumbing than others, and replacing it can cost tens of thousands of dollars. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the Biden-era infrastructure law, promised $15 billion for lead pipe replacements across the country to be disbursed over five years.  But in a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency sent earlier this week, a group of Illinois congressional delegates allege that $3 billion appropriated for lead pipe replacements nationwide for the fiscal year that ended in September has not reached communities yet. They warn that the delay is a “dangerous politicization” that puts children and families at risk. “It feels like it’s targeting blue states or blue cities that might require more of this mitigation.” “Federal resources are not partisan tools—they are vital lifelines intended to serve all Americans,” the letter notes. “Using federal funds as leverage against communities based on political considerations represents a dangerous abuse of power that undermines public trust and puts lives at risk.”  The move comes as communities in Illinois, which is among the top five states with the most lead service lines, and across the country are grappling with the overwhelming cost of removing the hazardous metal piping from water systems. The Trump administration has already withheld congressionally appropriated funding for infrastructure and energy projects from Democrat-led states like New York, Colorado, Minnesota, New York, and Massachusetts. Now, lawmakers fear money for lead pipes is stuck in Washington too.  “I think that they’re playing games,” said Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, one of the lawmakers who led the effort to send the letter. “It feels like it’s targeting blue states or blue cities that might require more of this mitigation than other parts of the country.”  Lead is toxic and dangerous to human health. Lead plumbing can flake and dissolve into drinking water, which can lead to brain damage, cardiovascular problems, and reproductive issues. The EPA advises that there is no safe level of lead exposure. A spokesperson for the federal agency said it is “actively working” on allotments for lead service line replacements. The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, which is responsible for disbursing the federal funds to local governments, did not respond to a request for comment. The Chicago Department of Water Management said it received $14 million from the Illinois EPA for the 2025 financial year and was approved for $28 million for the next fiscal year.   “The estimated replacement cost for the Chicago region alone is $12 billion or more, and statewide, it could be $14 billion,” Krishnamoorthi said. “Whatever amounts would come to Chicago would not be enough to do the entire job, but the federal component is vital to get the ball rolling.” Chicago has more than 412,000 lead service lines, the most of any city in the country. So far, the city has replaced roughly 14,000 lead pipes at a cost of $400 million over the past five years. That’s due in part to the high cost of replacing lead pipes. In Chicago, a single lead pipe replacement can cost on average $35,000. Federal rules require that Chicago replace all its pipes by 2047, but city officials have cited concerns over the unfunded federal mandate.  “This is impacting people’s health,” said Chakena Sims, a senior policy advocate with Natural Resources Defense Council. “The federal government politicizing access to safe drinking water is an all-time low,” she added. “It’s encouraging to see our Illinois congressional leaders stand up for communities.”  

Best Leaders 2025: John Palfrey

From finding MacArthur ‘geniuses’ to funding transformative change

John Palfrey is used to thinking about the biggest issues confronting society and what we should all do about them. And in these turbulent times, Palfrey, the president of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, has reaffirmed his and the foundation's commitment to supporting democracy, creativity, learning and diversity.“I have a relentlessly positive nature, and I do, for better and for worse, often see what is possible and then have the temerity to think we can go get it,” Palfrey said in an interview with U.S. News & World Report. “I think that form of optimism is very helpful, particularly on the darkest of days.”With $9.2 billion in assets, the MacArthur Foundation is one of the nation’s largest philanthropic organizations. In 2024 alone, the foundation paid out more than $350 million in grants. This year, the foundation announced it would increase its grants for 2025 and 2026 because of the federal government’s cuts to funding – which could be devastating for the arts, environmental protection, public safety and more.Meet America's Best LeadersU.S. News & World Report selected its 2025 Best Leaders in public service, business, healthcare and education.See the Top 25 of '25The foundation makes “Big Bets,” investing in initiatives intended to bring about transformative change. For example, in October, the foundation announced it would participate in Humanity AI, an initiative to help ensure that artificial intelligence is a positive tool for society, funding efforts to safeguard democracy from negative effects of the new technology and to protect artists and other creators from theft of their intellectual property.MacArthur also makes “enduring commitments” to invest in journalism that promotes inclusive news narratives and supports a healthy democracy, and it funds initiatives in Chicago, where it is headquartered, to support racial equity and a more inclusive community.It’s perhaps most famous for the MacArthur Fellowships – referred to as “genius grants” – which award 20 to 30 extraordinary creative people in various fields with $800,000 each over a five-year period.Palfrey, 53, likens the foundation to “sort of a nonprofit venture capital” fund.“We prize creativity and effectiveness. And so we are constantly looking for people and institutions and networks that are creative and have new ideas and different ways of approaching topics,” he says.As an educator and acclaimed legal scholar who previously worked at Harvard University and Phillips Academy, Andover, Palfrey has studied some of the most complex challenges facing a democratic society – such as education’s need to respect both free speech and diversity and the influence of technology on society. He understands the fraught nature of these issues and has written seven books, such as “Safe Spaces, Brave Spaces,” to address them head-on.But Palfrey did not anticipate the recent need to advocate for American democracy itself.“The First Amendment, our freedom of expression, the freedom of the press, the freedom to give, the freedom to invest,” he says. “These are 250-year-old American traditions that are unbroken.” And all of a sudden, he says, “they need advocates in a way that they haven’t before.”In addition to the foundation’s ongoing support of the independent press, Palfrey has spearheaded the creation of Press Forward, a new initiative supported by several foundations to rebuild local news.He’s also been touring the country to speak on the importance of democracy and the First Amendment as well as continuing that dialogue in essays and social media.Watching other institutions, such as universities, agree to substantial changes in policy in light of federal government demands, Palfrey thought of historian Timothy Snyder’s first rule for resisting tyranny: “Do not obey in advance.” So, in April 2025, Palfrey and colleagues at other foundations decided to “unite in advance,” issuing a statement that they must have the freedom to give to the causes they believe in. More than 700 foundations from across the ideological spectrum have since signed on.

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.