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.

Accept Deny

GoGreenNation News

Learn more about the issues presented in our films
Show Filters

Fire Disrupts UN Climate Talks Just as Negotiators Reach Critical Final Days

Fire has disrupted United Nations climate talks, forcing evacuations of several buildings with just two scheduled days left and negotiators yet to announce any major agreements

BELEM, Brazil (AP) — Fire disrupted United Nations climate talks in Brazil on Thursday, forcing evacuations of several buildings with just two scheduled days left and negotiators yet to announce any major agreements. Officials said no one was hurt.The fire was reported in an area of pavilions where sideline events are held during the annual talks, known this year as COP30. Organizers soon announced that the fire was under control, but fire officials ordered the entire site evacuated for safety checks and it wasn't clear when conference business would resume.Viliami Vainga Tone, with the Tonga delegation, had just come out of a high-level ministerial meeting when dozens of people came thundering past him shouting about the fire. He was among people pushed out of the venue by Brazilian and United Nations security forces.Tone called time the most precious resource at COP and said he was disappointed it's even shorter due to the fire.“We have to keep up our optimism. There is always tomorrow, if not the remainder of today. But at least we have a full day tomorrow,” Tone told The Associated Press.A few hours before the fire, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres urged countries to compromise and “show willingness and flexibility to deliver results,” even if they fall short of the strongest measures some nations want.“We are down to the wire and the world is watching Belem,” Guterres said, asking negotiators to engage in good faith in the last two scheduled days of talks, which already missed a self-imposed deadline Wednesday for progress on a few key issues. The conference, with this year's edition known as COP30, frequently runs longer than its scheduled two weeks.“Communities on the front lines are watching, too — counting flooded homes, failed harvests, lost livelihoods — and asking, ‘how much more must we suffer?’” Guterres said. "They’ve heard enough excuses and demand results.” On contentious issues involving more detailed plans to phase out fossil fuels and financial aid to poorer countries, Guterres said he was “perfectly convinced” that compromise was possible and dismissed the idea that not adopting the strongest measures would be a failure.Guterres was more forceful in what he wanted rich countries to do for poor countries, especially those in need of tens of billions of dollars to adapt to the floods, droughts, storms and heat waves triggered by worsening climate change. He continued calls to triple adaptation finance from $40 billion a year to $120 billion a year.“No delegation will leave Belem with everything it wants, but every delegation has a duty to reach a balanced deal,” Guterres said.“Every country, especially the big emitters, must do more,” Guterres said.Delivering overall financial aid — with an agreed goal of $300 billion a year — is one of four interconnected issues that were initially excluded from the official agenda. The other three are: whether countries should be told to toughen their new climate plans; dealing with trade barriers over climate and improving reporting on transparency and climate progress.More than 80 countries have pushed for a detailed “road map” on how to transition away from fossil fuels, like coal, oil and natural gas, which are the chief cause of warming. That was a general but vague agreement two years ago at the COP in Dubai. Guterres kept referring to it as already being agreed to in Dubai, but did not commit to a detailed plan, which Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva pushed for earlier in a speech.The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.This story was produced as part of the 2025 Climate Change Media Partnership, a journalism fellowship organized by Internews’ Earth Journalism Network and the Stanley Center for Peace and Security.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Nov. 2025

Climate
Business

Engineered microbes could tackle climate change – if we ensure it’s done safely

Engineering microbes to soak up more carbon, boost crop yields and restore former farmland is appealing. But synthetic biology fixes must be done thoughtfully

Yuji Sakai/GettyAs the climate crisis accelerates, there’s a desperate need to rapidly reduce carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, both by slashing emissions and by pulling carbon out of the air. Synthetic biology has emerged as a particularly promising approach. Despite the name, synthetic biology isn’t about creating new life from scratch. Rather, it uses engineering principles to build new biological components for existing microorganisms such as bacteria, microbes and fungi to make them better at specific tasks. By one recent estimate, synthetic biology could cut more carbon than emitted by all passenger cars ever made – up to 30 billion tonnes – through methods such as boosting crop yields, restoring agricultural land, cutting livestock methane emissions, reducing the need for fertiliser, producing biofuels and engineering microbes to store more carbon. According to some synthetic biologists, this could be a game-changer. But will it prove to be? Technological efforts to “solve” the climate problem often verge on the improbably utopian. There’s a risk in seeing synthetic biology as a silver bullet for environmental problems. A more realistic approach suggests synthetic biology isn’t a magic fix, but does have real potential worth exploring further. Engineering microorganisms is a controversial practice. To make the most of these technologies, researchers will have to ensure it’s done safely and ethically, as my research points out. What potential does synthetic biology have? Earth’s oceans, forests, soils and other natural processes soak up over half of all carbon emitted by burning fossil fuels. Synthetic biology could make these natural sinks even more effective. Some researchers are exploring ways to modify natural enzymes to rapidly convert carbon dioxide gas into carbon in rocks. Perhaps the best known example is the use of precision fermentation to cut methane emissions from livestock. Because methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, these emissions account for roughly 12% of total warming potential from greenhouse emissions. Bioengineered yeasts could absorb up to 98% of these emissions. After being eaten by cattle or other ruminants these yeasts block production of methane before it can be belched out. Synthetic biology could even drastically reduce how much farmland the world needs by producing food more efficiently. Engineered soil microbes can boost crop yields at least by 10–20%, meaning more food from less land. Precision fermentation can be used to produce clean meat and clean milk with much lower emissions than traditional farming. Engineered microbes have the potential to boost crop yields considerably. Collab Media/Unsplash, CC BY-NC-ND If farms produce more on less land, excess farmland can be returned to nature. Wetlands, forests and native grasslands can store much more carbon than farmland, helping tackle climate change. Synthetic biology can be used to modify microbe and algae species to increase their natural ability to store carbon in wetlands and oceans. This approach is known as natural geoengineering. Engineered crops and soil microbes can also lock away much more carbon in the roots of crops or by increasing soil storage capacity. They can also reduce methane emissions from organic matter and tackle pollutants such as fertiliser runoff and heavy metals. Sounds great – what’s the problem? As researchers have pointed out, using this approach will require a rollout at massive scale. At present, much work has been done at smaller scale. These engineered organisms need to be able to go from Petri dishes to industrial bioreactors and then safely into the environment. To scale, these approaches have to be economically viable, well regulated and socially acceptable. That’s easier said than done. First, engineering organisms comes with the serious risk of unintended consequences. If these customised microbes release their stored carbon all at once during a drought or bushfire, it could worsen climate change. It would be very difficult to control these organisms if a problem emerges after their release, such as if an engineered microbe began outcompeting its rivals or if synthetic genes spread beyond the target species and do unintended damage to other species and ecosystems. It will be essential to tackle these issues head on with robust risk management and forward planning. Second, synthetic biology approaches will likely become products. To make these organisms cheaply and gain market share, biotech companies will have an incentive to focus on immediate profits. This could lead companies to downplay actual risks to protect their profit margins. Regulation will be essential here. Third, some worthwhile approaches may not appeal to companies seeking a return on investment. Instead, governments or public institutions may have to develop them to benefit plants, animals and natural habitats, given human existence rests on healthy ecosystems. Which way forward? These issues shouldn’t stop researchers from testing out these technologies. But these risks must be taken into account, as not all risks are equal. Unchecked climate change would be much worse, as it could lead to societal collapse, large-scale climate migration and mass species extinction. Large scale removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is now essential. In the face of catastrophic risks, it can be ethically justifiable to take the smaller risk of unintended consequences from these organisms. But it’s far less justifiable if these same risks are accepted to secure financial returns for private investors. As time passes and the climate crisis intensifies, these technologies will look more and more appealing. Synthetic biology won’t be the silver bullet many imagine it to be, and it’s unlikely it will be the gold mine many hope for. But the technology has undeniable promise. Used thoughtfully and ethically, it could help us make a healthier planet for all living species. Daniele Fulvi receives funding from the ARC Centre of Excellence in Synthetic Biology, and his current project investigates the ethical dimensions of synthetic biology for climate mitigation. He also received a small grant from the Advanced Engineering Biology Future Science Platform at CSIRO. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and are not necessarily those of the Australian Government or the Australian Research Council.

Climate
Animals
Crisis

When Susan Wojcicki Discovered She Had Lung Cancer, She Decided to Find Out Why

After her shocking lung cancer diagnosis, the late Susan Wojcicki dedicated herself to fighting the disease and looking for answers

In 2022 Susan Wojcicki was on top of the world—CEO of YouTube, parent to five kids and running a few miles a day—when she received a shocking diagnosis: metastatic lung cancer. She soon resigned from YouTube and dedicated herself to fighting the disease and looking for answers. Why does the leading cause of cancer deaths receive less funding than some less lethal cancers? How could her lung cancer have progressed so far undetected? And how did she get lung cancer even though she had never smoked? This episode is dedicated to Wojcick, who passed away last year.LISTEN TO THE PODCASTOn 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.TRANSCRIPTElah Feder: One day in late 2022, Susan Wojcicki had plans to meet up with her childhood friend, Joanna Strober. Here's Joanna.Joanna Strober: We were supposed to go for a walk on a Sunday, and she called me and she canceled because she had some hip pain. And you know, I just thought, okay, you probably exercised too much. Susan was a runner. Maybe she pulled something, but she went to her doctor and then she- I guess she got an MRI. And it was cancer, and that was her first indication—hip pain.Elah Feder: Lung cancer, and it had spread, which was shocking. Susan, she was 54 years old and in top shape, running a few miles a day at that point. And on top of everything, Susan had never smoked.Joanna Strober: Susan led the most healthy life. She didn't eat sugar. She was very careful about exercising every day. She was very careful about not eating pesticides. I mean, she was on the extreme of leading a healthy lifestyle. So yes, it's not just the not smoking, but she was doing everything she possibly could to stay healthy.Elah Feder: Susan's experience is not as unusual as you'd think. Lung cancer is the most common kind of cancer in the world. Third most common in the US. Smoking is still the leading cause, but a growing number of people who get lung cancer don't smoke, were never smokers. That's especially true of women who get lung cancer.To be clear, this is a terrible diagnosis to get for anyone, whether they smoked or not, but for those who haven't, there can be an extra layer on top of all the other feelings: confusion. So when Susan got this diagnosis, of course she wanted treatments, but she also wanted answers. Why did this happen to her?Elah Feder: This is Lost Women of Science, and I'm Elah FederKatie Hafner: And I'm Katie Hafner and today the story of Susan Wojcicki, who died last year of lung cancer.Elah, before we get to Susan's lung cancer, I want to acknowledge—some people out there might already be familiar with her name because Susan Wojcicki was one of the most successful and influential people in the world.Elah Feder: Yeah. Susan was the longtime CEO of YouTube, and she got involved in Google very early on, so that by 2022, her estimated net worth was about $800 million.Um, there's a story that gets quoted a lot about her early business acumen. When she was a kid, she and her friend, Joanna Strober—who you heard earlier—they sold what they called spice ropes. Here's Joanna again.Joanna Strober: It's really not that big of a deal. All we did was we made these yellow and orange yarn things and we put cinnamon in them and we called them spice ropes, and we sold them to the neighbors who of course had to buy them because they were neighbors.Elah Feder: The way the story gets told, it's like, look at this Susan kid born entrepreneur, but Joanna says, “no, no, no.” The point is they were just regular kids being kids.Katie Hafner: Right. It was their version of a lemonade stand. Right?Elah Feder: Exactly.Joanna Strober: We were not special. We were normal 10 year olds in a really beautiful environment that was supportive of our endeavors.The environment was the Stanford community. We grew up surrounded by smart people who were doing really interesting research and who, quite honestly, were changing the world in lots of ways. Lots of scientists, physicists, entrepreneurs. It was a wonderful way to grow up because everything felt very possible growing up on the Stanford campus in the seventies.Elah Feder: Susan grew up on the Stanford campus because her dad was a physics professor there, Stanley Wojcicki. Um, her mom—also very impressive—Esther Wojcicki, she's a journalist, educator, writer. She- she wrote a book called How to Raise Successful People, and I mean Esther Wojcicki has the cred to back this up. Uh, a couple of years ago, Mattel decided to honor women in STEM by making Barbies of some of the more notable figures. All three of her kids made the cut.Katie Hafner: Of course they did. Esther: mother of champions.Elah Feder: What you're hearing is a video of Susan, Janet and Anne Wojcicki all unboxing their Barbie likenesses.Janet Wojcicki: Let's do physics, mathematics. Let's show them what the childhood was really like!Elah Feder: You just heard Janet, she's the middle sister. Uh, she's a professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at UCSF.Then there's the youngest kid. Anne.Katie Hafner: Yes, Anne Wojcicki: the co-founder of 23andMe. Listeners might recognize her name from all the times we thank the Anne Wojcicki Foundation in the credits—and her foundation funded this episode as well, right?Elah Feder: And then there was Susan, the eldest. I talked to Anne and Janet a few weeks ago. All all three sisters were very close in age, all born in a span of, of just five years. But talking to them, it sounds like Susan had classic first child syndrome. You're gonna hear Anne first.Anne Wojcicki: She was always the responsible one. Janet was not. And- and but-Janet Wojckick: And you were halfway in between.Anne Wojcicki: I was halfway in between, yeah. My friends always liked hanging out with Susan, but they didn't like hanging out with Janet. And then part is that Susan was so kind. Susan was kind. She was responsible, like she would take us out to ice cream. She would pick me up from ice skating. She was like, always on time.Elah Feder: If Susan Wojcicki promised you ice cream, you were gonna get ice cream. This is a quality that surely you'd want in a leader. But Anne says Susan wasn't born to be a mogul or anything.Anne Wojcicki: I'd say Susan was very much almost like the accidental CEO. I never would've looked at her when we were younger and said like, “oh, my sister is going to be a CEO.” You know, like there's definitely other people I look at in high school who have focused on finance and thinking about their careers and stuff.Elah Feder: Susan, on the other hand, was a history and literature major, but in 1998 she got involved in the creation of a new tech company when she rented out her garage to two Guys: Larry Page and Sergey Brin. They were starting a new company, and I think you know the name. Um…Katie Hafner: Google, if I'm not mistaken!Elah Feder: Google!Newscaster: a little engine that could, we're talking about this morning, has nothing to do with the children's story about a brave little locomotive. That's because this engine is a search engine. Google by name, an internet website, partnered with our own CBS news.com.Elah Feder: Susan soon became the company's first marketing manager, and a few years after that she led them in buying another tech company: a company called YouTube. And in 2014 she was appointed YouTube CEO.Newscaster 2: Well, her name is Susan Wojcicki and she's one of the most powerful women in tech. She's also mother of four and more than eight months pregnant with her fifth child. So how did she do it all?Elah Feder: So, in 2022, Susan has been CEO of YouTube for eight years. Somehow she still had time to raise five children and run a few miles a day, which is completely alien to me.You know that Beyonce meme, like Beyonce has as many hours in the day as you do, and it's, like, meant to shame you for being inadequate. Um, that is how I feel hearing about Susan Wojcicki. Point is she's doing really well when she gets this news. And it's a complete shock. Here's Anne again.Anne Wojcicki: I think when you suddenly- like Susan was kind of on top of the world, like she loved her job, YouTube is taking off and she had her five kids and they're all amazing and um, and then suddenly it was like, your life is gonna be over soon. Right away the first priority was treatment.Elah Feder: Very quickly, Susan resigned from YouTube and really gave herself over to fighting this.Joanna Strober: What she really did was started working with scientists…Elah Feder: Joanna, again.Joanna Strober: …doing the in-depth work to understand the science and what treatments were available and what she could do, but it was very scientifically focused.Elah Feder: Susan would go on to learn a lot about lung cancer, and one of the things that she learned that really disturbed her is that doctors were not great at detecting her kind of cancer: lung cancer in non-smokers. Often there are no early signs, or in Susan's case, very few signs even when the cancer has progressed. Here's her sister, Janet.Janet Wojcicki: We went to see her, you know, thoracic oncologist, right? Her lung oncologist. She's sitting on the table and the oncologist is actually examining her and she's listening to her lungs and Susan's basically saying like, you don't hear anything, right? You, you hear nothing like it sounds totally normal, right? And the oncologist is like, yeah. So just from a clinical exam, she was perfect. There was nothing. So she was like, how is it that I have stage four lung cancer? You're an oncologist, you're listening to me, you're looking at me, and like, nothing's awry. So it's- it was that kind of disconnect that was also kind of a call to action.Elah Feder: How could Susan's lung cancer have gone undetected so long that it had spread? And why is it that when lung cancer is detected, survival rates aren't higher? Well, part of the reason might be that we need more funding despite some very effective anti-smoking campaigns, lung cancer is still the leading cause of cancer deaths in the U.S., but it only gets about half the federal research funds that breast cancer does- or it did. The NIH has been slashing research funding, including cancer research. We'll see how this all shakes out in the coming months and years. In any case, lung cancer might not be the only cancer that's in trouble going forward. But historically, part of the reason that lung cancer got proportionately less funding might have to do with attitudes toward lung cancer. It just isn't viewed the same way that breast or prostate or pancreatic cancers are. It's often seen as something you bring on yourself. Here's Anne again.Anne Wojcicki: I think that the stigma has really hurt research- is that people look at it and they say like, oh, well you smoked. And um, and I think that's one of the things that Susan really wanted to change.Elah Feder: It took a long time to get this broad consensus that smoking causes lung cancer. If we go back to the forties and fifties, that's when you first see a bunch of studies coming out that demonstrate this link. And even so, if you asked a doctor in 1960, if the link had been proven, a fifth said they didn't think so. About half of them still smoked, but eventually the other side prevailed. We now have a consensus that smoking does cause lung cancer, but the downside is stigma.Katie Hafner: You know? And the stigma is really, really deeply embedded in our society. The minute you hear that somebody has been diagnosed with lung cancer, the very first thing you ask is, do they smoke? Have they smoked? Have you smoked? Has she smoked? And, so you immediately assign that stigma to the lung cancer even when it quickly gets established that there was no smoking. And that could also have an indirect effect on this lack of funding.Elah Feder: Yeah, that's the suspicion, and of course the stigma and the victim blaming is terrible for people who did smoke too. So, that really bothered Susan and she gave a lot of money for research, but she was also at the same time just investigating her own cancer. You know how, how did she get it?Anne Wojcicki: I think one of the first things we did was we got the houses tested for radon exposure.Elah Feder: Katie, do you know about radon? Are you familiar with radon?Katie Hafner: I mean, I'm familiar, but I have no idea what that has to do with it. Tell me.Elah Feder: I only recently learned about this, so, so radon is a radioactive gas. It- it sounds like one of these scary things you read on the internet, but this is real. It's a radioactive gas that naturally occurs in the ground, but it leaks into basements where it can accumulate to dangerous levels. It has no smell, no- no color. So you really would not know if it's in your home unless you test for it. Um, but it's the leading cause of lung cancer in non-smokers.Katie Hafner: You mean before secondhand smoke?Elah Feder: Apparently. In the U.S. radon is the number one cause of lung cancer among non-smokers according to the EPA.Other causes, of course, do include air pollution, asbestos exposure, and secondhand smoke.Katie Hafner: Wow. So, I've always thought secondhand smoke was it? But it sounds like it was, it sounds like it's radon.Elah Feder: Me too. Maybe it used to be when people were smoking more.Katie Hafner: Yeah.Elah Feder: But yeah, radon is unfortunately in the lead. Um, Susan's basement: clear of radon.Katie Hafner: And what about genetics? Last week, you know, we talked about a researcher named Maud Slye who worked to show that heredity explained all cancer.Elah Feder: Wrongly, but yes.Katie Hafner: Turns out not to be true, but that's okay. You go Maud. Um, are there genes linked to lung cancer? I guess that's my question.Elah Feder: There are, um, but lung cancer is still, for the most part, a disease caused by- by either your environment or your lifestyle. Some genes have been linked to increased cancer risk. For example, a certain mutation in the EGFR gene. More genes might be found. It's also possible that it's not just about finding a single gene, but about how mutations in a bunch of genes interact. But yeah, for the most part, lung cancer tends to be about environment and lifestyle more than genetics.Here's a part where there's sometimes confusion. Cancer usually happens when there's a genetic mutation in a cell, actually a series of mutations. And these cause that cell to start acting weird and replicating out of control. So in a sense, genetics is always involved in cancer, but in this case, we're not talking about inherited genetics, we're talking about mutations that you get in some of your cells later in life. They can pop up when you're 10 or 30 or 80 or hopefully never. But then, some people do have preexisting germline mutations. Some mutations that you have had since you were a little zygote that exist in every cell of your body. And, these don't usually directly cause cancer on their own. Um, I think an analogy might be helpful here. So, imagine a mutation as a switch. You usually need a few switches to turn on before a cell becomes cancerous. But some people are born with one of their switches already in the on position. And that makes them more vulnerable. Does that make sense?Katie Hafner: It makes sense. It, I mean, it makes me think about the BRCA gene.Elah Feder: Mm-hmm. Exactly.Katie Hafner: So you might be born with this mutation that puts you at high risk of getting breast cancer, but you might still not get it, but it still seems like a good idea to find out if you're at risk so that you can take some precautions and plan ahead.Elah Feder: Right. Although with lung cancer, genetic screening is tricky. Like I mentioned, heredity is not the driving factor usually for this kind of cancer. Um, but say- say you do find you have a heritable mutation that puts you at risk. You're limited in what you can do. It's not like BRCA where you might consider a double mastectomy. You're- you're gonna keep your lungs. You could take extra care to avoid environmental exposures—something we really should all do. You might even get regular low-dose CT scans—that’s actually something that is recommended for people who have smoked after a certain age to detect any lung cancer early, but those come with risks too: you’re getting a little bit of radiation each time. I’m not saying it's not worth it, it might be if you are very high risk, but it's a consideration. Anyway, that's for people who do not have lung cancer already, but are concerned about a genetic predisposition. For someone who does have lung cancer, yeah, you probably want to know what's going on in your tumor genetically.Katie Hafner: So what about Susan's case? Did she find a genetic cause for her lung cancer that could be really useful for her family to know?Elah Feder: No. Um, Susan did not actually test positive for any hereditary mutation linked to cancer, but there are still genes that may not have been identified. Even before her diagnosis, she and her husband were donating money for cancer research through their foundation. After her diagnosis, they ramped this up. Donating to research about immunotherapies, early detection. But, also funding a new project at her sister's Company 23andMe. It's called the Lung Cancer Genetic Study. So, they are trying to build a massive database of genetic information from people with lung cancer.One of the project's goals is to find heritable genetic risk factors, but they explain it's actually bigger than that. They want to know how heritable mutations, tumor mutations, and lifestyle all interact so that they might figure out, for example, why one person who smokes develops cancer, but another doesn't. It might also help them to develop new therapies. So-Katie Hafner: I just wanna interject with something that strikes me just as we're having this conversation, which is that, um, people who are listening to this probably know that 23andMe had a lot of problems, ended up filing for bankruptcy protection and Anne resigned earlier this year. Um, I'm sure that it's been very challenging for Anne, but it sounds like she is in her very best, um, Wojcicki family-like way: making lemonade out of lemons in this regard. That's my initial reaction to everything you're saying.Elah Feder: Yeah. And as you know, 23andMe—while it filed for bankruptcy—it lives on and created a nonprofit called the TTAM Research Institute. It bought 23andMe in July this year. And so, 23andMe is still going and so is this project. So far about 1200 patients have signed up and the goal is to reach 10,000.Anne Wojcicki: If you think about any one medical center, if it's UCSF or at Stanford or Harvard, getting a thousand patients coming in is- is a lot. And so, that's kind of the beauty of being able to go and find people around the entire country, is to be able to pull all that data together and then make that accessible to the research community.Elah Feder: 23andMe's Lung Cancer Genetics Study was officially announced in July last year. Susan Wojcicki died a few weeks later on August 9th, 2024. She was 56.Katie Hafner: So, Susan never did get an answer. She never found out why she had lung cancer.Elah Feder: No, she did not. And we're still trying to understand a lot about lung cancer in general. Here's Anne.Anne Wojcicki: There's still just like a lot you don't know. Understanding environmental science I think is really important. We live in a very complicated world with a lot of, you know, there's fires and there's pollution and there's what you eat and we just don't know. You don't know what the impact of all of that is, and so, you can't- I mean you can't live your life trying to measure everything and worry about everything. Like in some ways you have to come to terms with that, that you can't- you can't worry about it all the time.Elah Feder: This is a big part of life. It's understanding that so much of it is beyond our control, and we often don't even get answers. We don't find out why bad things happen to us. At the same time, when it comes to lung cancer, there is more that we can do. Here's Janet.Janet Wojcicki: I mean, if there are modifiable risk factors that we can identify—I mean the key word being modifiable, right? Then, ideally we could act on them.Elah Feder: We can fight air pollution, we can stop kids from getting their hands on cigarettes. We can look for more heritable risk factors and invest more money in treatments. As for Susan Wojcicki, despite all of her resources and all of her drive, ultimately she couldn't stop the cancer in her own body, but she left her mark in business in cancer research. She left a bigger mark than most of us ever will, but her sisters and her friend, Joanna- the thing that they really remember is how she never let any of that success go to her head.Anne Wojcicki: It didn't matter if we were like some fancy party or if Oprah wanted to talk to her. She was kind of the same. She was always very unaffected. And, it was, like, really fun going to the Oscars with her because she'd be like, “ah, I'm just gonna buy this dress on clearance at Macy's, and like no one cares what I wear.” And that was kind of the thing that was fun. She'd be like, “it would just be fun with you and like only going so that we can hang out.”Anne Wojcicki I always ride in my flats and my skirts. You're going to- are gonna YouTube? I’m actually really curious. Are you gonna meet YouTube- are you gonna meet Mr. Beast?Elah Feder: This episode of Lost Women of Science was produced by me, Elah Feder, and hosted by our co-executive producer Katie Hafner.Our senior managing producer is Deborah Unger. We had fact-checking help from Danya AbdelHameid. Lily Whear made the episode art. Thanks as always. To our co-executive producer, Amy Scharf, Eowyn Burtner, our program manager, and Jeff DelViscio at our publishing partner, Scientific American. This episode was made with funding from the Anne Wojcicki Foundation.You can find a transcript and a link to the Lung Cancer Genetics Study at www.lostwomenofscience.org.HostKatie HafnerHost and Senior ProducerElah FederGuestsAnne Wojcicki Anne is Susan Wojcicki’s youngest sister and the co-founder of 23andMe.Janet WojcickiJanet is the middle Wojcicki sister. She’s a professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF).Joanna StroberJoanna is the co-founder of Midi Health and a long-time friend of Susan Wojcicki.Further Reading“From Susan” — Susan Wojcicki’s final post, written a few weeks before she died and published on YouTube’s blog on Nov. 25, 2024.How to Raise Successful People. Esther Wojcicki, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2019The Lung Cancer Genetics Study“Does Lung Cancer Attract Greater Stigma Than Other Cancer Types?” by Laura A. V. Marlow et al., in Lung Cancer, Vol. 88, No. 1; April 2015

Business
Health
Pollution

Shein pressed over sale of "childlike sex dolls" by bipartisan representatives

A bipartisan group of lawmakers is demanding answers from fast-fashion giant Shein related to the possible sale of dolls "with a childlike appearance" to U.S. consumers.The big picture: The rare cross-party scrutiny piles onto years of criticism the Chinese-founded online retailer has faced over its environmental and labor practices and comes as it faces new trade barriers to its sale of ultra-cheap goods.Driving the news: The letter, addressed to Shein's CEO, expressed deep concern that the company's website may have been used to sell "childlike sex dolls" to American customers.The lawmakers pointed to the company's 2024 Sustainability and Social Impact Report, which states sellers are prohibited from hawking products that promote "child abuse and exploitation."The letter reads, "There is no question as to whether these dolls encourage child abuse and exploitation."The Hill was the first outlet to report on the letter.Catch up quick: French officials recently threatened to cut off Shein from the country's market after the nation's consumer and anti-fraud watchdog reported the company over the dolls, saying the description of them "makes it difficult to doubt the child pornography nature of the content."A Shein spokesperson said in a statement to Axios that the e-commerce titan imposed "strict sanctions on sellers involved in the sale of child-like dolls" following the French report and that it implemented a "complete ban" on all sex-doll products.Donald Tang, the company's executive chairman, said the marketplace listings were from third-party sellers and that Shein was "tracing the source and will take swift, decisive action against those responsible."Zoom in: The lawmakers said that while they commended Shein for banning the sale of sex dolls, "it is unacceptable that these products were ever allowed to be sold on Shein's website."They imposed a December 20 deadline for the company to answer whether such dolls were ever available for sale in the U.S. via the Shein e-commerce marketplace and if they were sold to American customers, among other inquiries. What they're saying: "It is incredibly disappointing that a major global retailer allowed childlike sex dolls to be sold on its platform, products that are known to fuel pedophilia and endanger children," said Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.), who led the letter alongside Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.).In another bipartisan effort to crack down on the sale of such products, Buchanan introduced a bill in February with Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) to make it a crime to import, transport, buy, sell, distribute or possess a sex doll that resembles a child.The bill was introduced after a local South Florida station reported that a woman said her daughter's likeness had been stolen and used to create a sex doll that was for sale online.The bottom line: Wasserman Schultz said in a statement that "[w]e cannot end the sexual exploitation of children if these repulsive products are built, sold and shared."Go deeper: The biggest threat to Chinese e-commerce sites

A bipartisan group of lawmakers is demanding answers from fast-fashion giant Shein related to the possible sale of dolls "with a childlike appearance" to U.S. consumers.The big picture: The rare cross-party scrutiny piles onto years of criticism the Chinese-founded online retailer has faced over its environmental and labor practices and comes as it faces new trade barriers to its sale of ultra-cheap goods.Driving the news: The letter, addressed to Shein's CEO, expressed deep concern that the company's website may have been used to sell "childlike sex dolls" to American customers.The lawmakers pointed to the company's 2024 Sustainability and Social Impact Report, which states sellers are prohibited from hawking products that promote "child abuse and exploitation."The letter reads, "There is no question as to whether these dolls encourage child abuse and exploitation."The Hill was the first outlet to report on the letter.Catch up quick: French officials recently threatened to cut off Shein from the country's market after the nation's consumer and anti-fraud watchdog reported the company over the dolls, saying the description of them "makes it difficult to doubt the child pornography nature of the content."A Shein spokesperson said in a statement to Axios that the e-commerce titan imposed "strict sanctions on sellers involved in the sale of child-like dolls" following the French report and that it implemented a "complete ban" on all sex-doll products.Donald Tang, the company's executive chairman, said the marketplace listings were from third-party sellers and that Shein was "tracing the source and will take swift, decisive action against those responsible."Zoom in: The lawmakers said that while they commended Shein for banning the sale of sex dolls, "it is unacceptable that these products were ever allowed to be sold on Shein's website."They imposed a December 20 deadline for the company to answer whether such dolls were ever available for sale in the U.S. via the Shein e-commerce marketplace and if they were sold to American customers, among other inquiries. What they're saying: "It is incredibly disappointing that a major global retailer allowed childlike sex dolls to be sold on its platform, products that are known to fuel pedophilia and endanger children," said Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.), who led the letter alongside Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.).In another bipartisan effort to crack down on the sale of such products, Buchanan introduced a bill in February with Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) to make it a crime to import, transport, buy, sell, distribute or possess a sex doll that resembles a child.The bill was introduced after a local South Florida station reported that a woman said her daughter's likeness had been stolen and used to create a sex doll that was for sale online.The bottom line: Wasserman Schultz said in a statement that "[w]e cannot end the sexual exploitation of children if these repulsive products are built, sold and shared."Go deeper: The biggest threat to Chinese e-commerce sites

Nature
Pollution

Exclusive-Europe Plans Service to Gauge Climate Change Role in Extreme Weather

By Alison Withers and Kate AbnettCOPENHAGEN (Reuters) -The EU is launching a service to measure the role climate change is playing in extreme...

By Alison Withers and Kate AbnettCOPENHAGEN (Reuters) -The EU is launching a service to measure the role climate change is playing in extreme weather events like heatwaves and extreme rain, and experts say this could help governments set climate policy, improve financial risk assessments and provide evidence for use in lawsuits.Scientists with the EU's Copernicus Climate Change Service told Reuters the service can help governments in weighing the physical risks posed by worsening weather and setting policy in response. "It's the demand of understanding when an extreme event happens, how is this related to climate change?" said the new service's technical lead, Freja Vamborg.The European Commission did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment.The service will perform attribution science, which involves running computer simulations of how weather systems might have behaved if people had never started pumping greenhouse gases into the air and then comparing those results with what is happening today.Funded for about 2.5 million euros over three years, Copernicus will publish results by the end of next year and offer two assessments a month - each within a week of an extreme weather event.For the first time, "there will be an attribution office operating constantly," said Carlo Buontempo, director of Copernicus Climate Change Service. "Climate policy is unfortunately again a very polarized topic," said Friederike Otto, a climate scientist at Imperial College London who helped to pioneer the scientific approach but is not involved in the new EU service. She welcomed the service's plans to partner with national weather services of EU members along with the UK Met and the Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre."From that point of view, it also helps if the governments do it themselves and just see themselves really the evidence from their own weather services," Otto said. Some independent climate scientists and lawyers cheered the EU move. "We want to have the most information available," said senior attorney Erika Lennon at the non-profit Center for International Environmental Law."The more information we have about attribution science, the easier it will be for the most impacted to be able to successfully bring claims to courts."By calculating probabilities of climate change impacting weather patterns, the approach also helps insurance companies and others in the financial sector.In a way, "they're already using it" with in-house teams calculating probabilities for floods or storms, said environmental scientist Johan Rockstroem with the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research."Financial institutions understand risk and risk has to be quantified, and this is one way of quantifying," Rockstroem said.In litigation, attribution science is also being used already in calculating how much a country's or company's emissions may have contributed to climate-fuelled disasters.The International Court of Justice said in July that attribution science is legally viable for linking emissions with climate extremes - but it has yet to fully be tested in court. A German court in May dismissed a Peruvian farmer's lawsuit against German utility RWE for emissions-driven warming causing Andean glaciers to thaw. The case had used attribution science in calculating the damage claim, but the court said the claim amount was too low to take the case forward.So "the court never got to discussing attribution science in detail and going into whether the climate models are good enough, and all of these complex and thorny questions," said Noah Walker-Crawford, a climate litigation researcher at the London School of Economics. (Reporting by Ali Withers in Copenhagen and Kate Abnett in Belem, Brazil; Writing by Katy Daigle; Editing by David Gregorio)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.

Climate
Government
Science

New Flu Variant Could Bring Another Severe U.S. Season

By I. Edwards HealthDay ReporterTHURSDAY, Nov. 20, 2025 (HealthDay News) — A new flu variant spreading overseas may set the stage for another tough...

THURSDAY, Nov. 20, 2025 (HealthDay News) — A new flu variant spreading overseas may set the stage for another tough winter in the United States, experts warn.The strain, called subclade K, has caused a rise in flu cases in the United Kingdom, Canada and Japan. And now signs suggest it is beginning to take hold across the United States as flu activity rises.According to the latest U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) FluView report, reported flu activity in the United States remains low but is climbing quickly.Last year’s flu season was the worst the United States had seen in nearly 15 years and led to at least 280 child deaths, according to the CDC.Most cases this year are from the H3N2 virus and about half of those belong to the subclade K variant, the same strain that fueled a difficult flu season in the Southern Hemisphere.Because it wasn’t circulating widely when strains were selected for the vaccine update, this year’s flu shot targets close strains of the virus."It’s not like we’re expecting to get complete loss of protection for the vaccine, but perhaps we might expect a little bit of a drop-off if this is the virus that sort of dominates the season, and early indications are that’s probably going to be the case," Richard Webby, a researcher at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee, told CNN.Early findings from the UK Health Security Agency suggest the variant carries seven genetic changes on a major part of the virus, making it a bit harder for the body's immune system to recognize.Even so, they found that the flu shot has reduced the risk of hospitalization or emergency care by about 75% in children and 30% to 40% in adults so far this season.What worries experts even more is that fewer Americans appear to be getting the flu shot.Data from IQVIA shows that pharmacies gave 26.5 million flu vaccinations from August through October, down from 28.7 million during the same period last year."I’m not surprised," Jennifer Nuzzo, professor of epidemiology and director of the Pandemic Center at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, said.She said recent debates about vaccine safety have "left people confused but possibly at the worst have left people worried about getting vaccinated."Australia’s flu shot rates also fell this year and the country went on to record more than 443,000 cases."What they saw in Australia is that they had a bad season. And so it’s concerning for you and us, what’s coming," Dr. Earl Rubin, division director of infectious disease at Montreal Children’s Hospital, told CNN.Several early indicators already show flu levels rising in the U.S.The WastewaterSCAN network found type A flu in 40% of samples in November, up from 18% in October, according to Marlene Wolfe, an assistant professor in the department of environmental health at Emory University in Atlanta.Only four U.S. monitoring sites in Maine, Vermont, Iowa and Hawaii have officially crossed the threshold for declaring flu activity high, but experts say the trend is clear.While it’s not yet clear whether subclade K could cause more severe illness, a rise in infections alone could cause hospitalizations to skyrocket, Rubin noted."It’s not too late. Go and get your flu shot," Dr. Adam Lauring, chief of the division of infectious diseases at the University of Michigan Medical School, in Ann Arbor, said.These results are preliminary and have not yet been peer-reviewed.The Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) has more on the flu vaccine.SOURCE: CNN, Nov. 18, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Health
Waste
Water

K-Pop Fans' Environmental Activism Comes to UN Climate Talks

K-pop is turning up in force at the United Nations climate talks in Brazil, with fans-turned-activists hosting protest and events to mobilize their millions-strong online community to back concrete climate actions

BELEM, Brazil (AP) — Fans of K-pop have an intensity that's turned the music into a global phenomenon. Some are determined to channel that energy into action on climate change.Meanwhile, panels attended by high-ranking South Korean officials during the talks, known as COP30, strategized on how to mobilize the K-pop fanbase.“It’s the first time K-pop fans have been introduced on a COP stage — not bands or artists — but fans,” said Cheulhong Kim, director of the Korean Cultural Center in Brazil, a branch of South Korea's Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism. “K-pop fans are the real protagonists behind this culture that has the power to shape social and political issues."While attending a K-pop event at COP30, South Korea's Minister of Climate, Energy and Environment Kim Seong-hwan told The Associated Press that his ministry “will support K-pop fans and their artists so that K-pop can contribute to tackling the climate crisis.” K-pop on the climate front Banners reading “Export K-pop, not fossil fuels” filled part of the main hall at COP30 on Monday, as activists demanded South Korea cut its funding for foreign fossil fuel development.Seokhwan Jeong, who organized the protest with the Seoul-based advocacy group, Solutions for Our Climate, alluded to a storyline from the demon hunters movie with a character leading a double life, hiding a secret.“South Korea must overcome its dual stance — championing coal phase-out on the global stage while supporting fossil-fuel finance behind the scenes,” Jeong said. “It is time for the country to stop hiding and become a genuine climate champion.”When organized, the fan base is a force to be reckoned with because of its size and intense loyalty, said Gyu Tag Lee, a professor at George Mason University Korea who studies the cultural impact of K-pop.Dayeon Lee, a campaigner with KPOP4PLANET, believes “cultural power is driving real climate action.”“Our love extends beyond artists," Lee said. “We care for each other across fandoms and borders. We are young people facing the same future, fluent in social media, keen to respond to injustice.”The K-pop activism aligns with the Brazilian Portuguese concept of “mutirão” — a spirit of collective effort — that the COP30 Presidency is using as a rallying cry on the problem of climate change, according to Vinicius Gurtler, general coordinator for international affairs in Brazil’s Ministry of Culture.More than 80 countries have voiced support for the “mutirão” call in what environmentalists have said “could be the turning point of COP30.”“One of the best ways for us to do this is through music and through the youth," Gurtler said. "I don’t think that we will create a better planet if we cannot sing and if we cannot imagine a better world."The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.This story was produced as part of the 2025 Climate Change Media Partnership, a journalism fellowship organized by Internews’ Earth Journalism Network and the Stanley Center for Peace and Security.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Nov. 2025

Activism
Climate
Crisis

How Much Protein Do You Need? Experts Explain

Fitness influencers promote superhigh-protein diets, but studies show there’s only so much the body can use

Snack bars, yogurts, ice cream, even bottled water: it seems like food makers have worked out ways to slip extra protein into just about anything as they seek to capitalize on a growing consumer trend.Today, protein-fortified foods and protein supplements form a market worth tens of billions of US dollars, with fitness influencers, as well as some researchers and physicians, promoting high-protein diets as the secret to strength and longevity. Protein is undeniably essential, but how much people really need is still a topic of debate.On the one hand, most official guidelines recommend a minimum of close to one gram of protein per kilogram of body weight per day, or the equivalent of about 250 grams of cooked chicken (which contains around 68 g of protein) for an adult weighing 70 kilograms. On the other hand, a growing narrative in wellness circles encourages people to eat more than double that amount. Many scientists fall somewhere in the middle and take issue with some of the advice circulating online.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.“It’s really frustrating because there isn’t evidence to support the claims that they’re making,” says Katherine Black, an exercise nutritionist at the University of Otago in Dunedin, New Zealand, referring to the super-high protein recommendations often shared on social media. What research does show is that protein needs can vary from person to person and can change throughout a lifetime. And people should think carefully about what they eat to meet those needs. “On social media, it’s like everyone’s worried about protein, putting protein powder into everything,” she says.Health authorities can help to guide people’s dietary choices on the basis of the latest research. The next Dietary Guidelines for Americans, a document that advises on what to eat for maintaining a healthy lifestyle, is due to come out by the end of this year. But its recommendations, which have tended to be broadly influential, might be changing.Calculating protein needsResearchers have been trying to estimate how much protein people need for more than a century. In 1840, chemist Justus von Liebig estimated that the average adult required 120 grams of protein a day, on the basis of a group of German workers’ diets. Later, scientists started to use nitrogen to calculate protein requirements. Protein is the only major dietary component that contains nitrogen. So, by measuring how much of it people consume and the amount they excrete, researchers could estimate how much the body uses.Since the 1940s, this nitrogen-balance method has been used to determine the Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDA), a set of nutrient recommendations developed by the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.The latest such recommendation for protein, from 2005, establishes the RDA for both men and women at 0.8 grams per kilogram of body weight per day, which it states should be enough to meet the needs of 97–98% of healthy people. European and global-health authorities recommend similar or slightly higher levels.Although scientists recognize that RDAs are a useful reference point, many say that people could benefit from a higher amount. “The RDA is not a target; it’s simply the minimum that appears to prevent any detectable deficiency,” says Donald Layman, a researcher focusing on protein requirements at the University of Illinois Urbana–Champaign. Evidence suggests that the optimal range is between 1.2 and 1.6 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight per day, he says.That is especially true for older adults, who often experience muscle loss as they age, as well as for certain athletes and people trying to gain muscle.For example, in an observational study of 2,066 adults aged 70–79, those who reported eating the most protein — about 1.1 gram per kilogram of bodyweight — lost 40% less lean mass during the three years of follow-up than did those who ate the least — around 0.7 grams per kilogram.“For older adults, 1.2 grams per kilogram is just giving them a little extra protection,” says Nicholas Burd, a nutrition and exercise researcher also at the University of Illinois Urbana–Champaign. Furthermore, older people might experience a decline in appetite, which makes it particularly important for them to pay attention to their protein intake. It doesn’t mean that they need to take protein supplements, he says. “It’s all things we can do with just normal incorporation of high-protein foods in our lives.”For healthy adults, increasing protein can boost the effects of resistance exercise, such as weightlifting. A 2017 systematic review found that, among people engaged in this type of training, taking protein supplements enhanced muscle gain and strength. But increasing protein beyond 1.6 grams per kilogram per day provided no further benefit.Meanwhile, some fitness influencers swear by eating 2.2 grams per kilogram of body weight. For most people, that’s simply overkill, says Burd. There’s little harm, other than for people with kidney disease, but Burd adds: “You just create an inefficient system where your body gets very good at wasting food protein.”Some practitioners might recommend higher protein targets to ensure that people get enough, Burd says. But the protein craze has been driven mostly by aggressive marketing of high-protein foods and supplements, he says.“The myth of increased protein needs has seeped into popular imagination, including among health professionals, and has been conveniently reinforced by the food industry,” says Fernanda Marrocos, a researcher specializing in nutrition and food policy at the University of São Paulo in Brazil.Amino-acid goalsNot all proteins are the same, and some researchers argue for a more nuanced recommendation that takes into account the amino acids — the building blocks of proteins — that foods contain. The human body requires 20 amino acids to function properly, including 9 that are considered ‘essential’ because they can be obtained only through food.The balance of those nine in animal-based foods is exactly what other animals need, says Layman. “In plants, the essential amino acids are generally there, but they’re in proportions for the plants.” That means that some plants might be rich in certain amino acids but not in others, so meeting the amino-acid requirements with plant-based products might require a greater variety of foods.He is critical of the way that official dietary guidelines calculate the recommendations for proteins from different sources. For example, according to the US Department of Agriculture, 14 grams of almonds can substitute 28 grams of chicken breast. Research by Layman and his colleagues, which considers the amino-acid balance, suggests that it would actually take more than 115 grams of almonds to substitute 28 grams of chicken.Robert Wolfe, a researcher focusing on muscle metabolism at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences in Little Rock, says that dietary guidelines should incorporate the analysis of the quality of the protein, including the amino-acid balance and the degree to which the human body can digest them.One area for future research, Wolfe says, is understanding exactly how food processing affects protein content. Factors such as cooking temperature, for example, can influence how well the body digests protein. This can have implications for certain protein supplements and high-protein bars, which are generally highly processed.Obtaining that information requires going beyond nitrogen-balance studies. Wolfe’s team has used isotope tracers to determine the rate at which food protein is incorporated into new proteins in the body. One study of 56 young adults, for example, concluded that eating animal-based proteins resulted in a greater gain in body protein than did eating the equivalent amount of plant-based protein. But studies in this area are still small and shouldn’t be taken to mean that people must get all their protein from animal sources.The American Heart Association recommends prioritizing plant proteins, given that the saturated fat found in red meats can increase the risk of cardiovascular disease. There’s also a high environmental cost associated with meat production, which is a major source of greenhouse-gas emissions.Burd says that if a diet includes at least a portion of animal-based protein, it will probably provide all the essential amino acids for maintaining good health. And it is possible to achieve the same benefits solely from plant-based proteins. “This is where supplements could be beneficial because it’s more challenging to reach that balance from plants only,” Burd says.Specialists advising the formulation of the upcoming Dietary Guidelines for Americans say that most Americans already eat more than enough proteins. They suggest reducing protein consumption from red meat, chicken and eggs and increasing the consumption of certain vegetables. But it’s unclear what exactly will be in the guidelines: US health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr has stated in recent months that they will emphasize the need to eat saturated fats from sources including meat and dairy, which goes against recommendations from many medical associations.Protein consumption is adequate in most parts of the world, says Marrocos. A study her team led in Brazil found that, in general, people consume well above the World Health Organization’s protein recommendation, even those with the lowest income. So there’s no need to obsess about hitting an exact protein number.“For most people, as long as they’re eating enough calories and a reasonably varied diet, they’ll get all the protein they need,” says Marrocos.This article is reproduced with permission and was first published on November 12, 2025.

Agriculture
Animals
Food

Congress Axes Biden-Era Protections That Shielded Alaskan Wetlands From Drilling

The U.S. House of Representatives voted Tuesday to strike down protections against oil drilling in some of the most diverse ecosystems and wildest lands left in North America. The resolution passed relatively quietly, but the bill will have an enormous impact on millions of acres in northern Alaska, the subject of a decades-long fight over […]

By wiping out the environmental guardrails, Congress reopened one of the planet’s last great wilderness regions to oil and gas development, a move that could destabilize one its largest carbon stores.By Carl David Goette-LuciakThe U.S. House of Representatives voted Tuesday to strike down protections against oil drilling in some of the most diverse ecosystems and wildest lands left in North America. The resolution passed relatively quietly, but the bill will have an enormous impact on millions of acres in northern Alaska, the subject of a decades-long fight over conservation and drilling in the Arctic.

Conservation

Exoplanet atmospheres are a key to habitability

The habitable zone of a planet might be key to whether life can survive there. But so are exoplanet atmospheres, scientists say. The post Exoplanet atmospheres are a key to habitability first appeared on EarthSky.

Artist’s concept of exoplanet GJ 9827 d. It might be a steam world, with lots of water vapor in its atmosphere. Astronomers say exoplanet atmospheres are a key to whether or not life could survive on a planet. Image via NASA/ ESA/ Leah Hustak (STScI)/ Ralf Crawford (STScI)/ University of Montreal. Scientists focus on the habitable zone (where liquid water might exist) when they are gauging whether an exoplanet could be habitable. But exoplanet atmospheres are also key to whether a planet can maintain stable, life-supporting conditions. For life to persist on a planet, the environment must be stable. A planet’s surface, oceans and atmosphere can work together to regulate the system. By Morgan Underwood, Rice University EarthSky isn’t powered by billionaires. We’re powered by you.Support EarthSky’s 2025 Donation Campaign and help keep science accessible. Exoplanet atmospheres are a key to habitability When astronomers search for planets that could host liquid water on their surface, they start by looking at a star’s habitable zone. Water is a key ingredient for life, and on a planet too close to its star, water on its surface may boil. Too far, and it could freeze. This zone marks the region in-between. But being in this sweet spot doesn’t automatically mean a planet is hospitable to life. Other factors, like whether a planet is geologically active or has processes that regulate gases in its atmosphere, play a role. The habitable zone provides a useful guide to search for signs of life on exoplanets, or planets outside our solar system orbiting other stars. But what’s in these planets’ atmospheres holds the next clue about whether liquid water – and possibly life – exists beyond Earth. The greenhouse effect On Earth, the greenhouse effect, caused by gases like carbon dioxide and water vapor, keeps the planet warm enough for liquid water and life as we know it. Without an atmosphere, Earth’s surface temperature would average around 0 degrees Fahrenheit (-18 C), far below the freezing point of water. The boundaries of the habitable zone are defined by how much of a greenhouse effect is necessary to maintain the surface temperatures that allow for liquid water to persist. It’s a balance between sunlight and atmospheric warming. Many planetary scientists, including me, are seeking to understand if the processes responsible for regulating Earth’s climate are operating on other habitable-zone worlds. We use what we know about Earth’s geology and climate to predict how these processes might appear elsewhere. That is where my geoscience expertise comes in. Picturing the habitable zone of a solar system analog, with Venus- and Mars-like planets outside of the “just right” temperature zone. Image via NASA. Why the habitable zone? The habitable zone is a simple and powerful idea, and for good reason. It provides a starting point, directing astronomers to where they might expect to find planets with liquid water. But without needing to know every detail about the planet’s atmosphere or history. Its definition is partially informed by what scientists know about Earth’s rocky neighbors. Mars, which lies just outside the outer edge of the habitable zone, shows clear evidence of ancient rivers and lakes where liquid water once flowed. Similarly, Venus is currently too close to the sun to be within the habitable zone. Yet, some geochemical evidence and modeling studies suggest Venus may have had water in its past. Though how much and for how long remains uncertain. These examples show that while the habitable zone is not a perfect predictor of habitability, it provides a useful starting point. How to have a stable environment What the habitable zone doesn’t do is determine whether a planet can sustain habitable conditions over long periods of time. On Earth, a stable climate allowed life to emerge and persist. Liquid water could remain on the surface, giving slow chemical reactions enough time to build the molecules of life. This let early ecosystems develop resilience to change, which reinforced habitability. Life emerged on Earth, but continued to reshape the environments it evolved in, making them more conducive to life. This stability likely unfolded over hundreds of millions of years, as the planet’s surface, oceans and atmosphere worked together as part of a slow but powerful system to regulate Earth’s temperature. Recycling inorganic carbon A key part of this system is how Earth recycles inorganic carbon between the atmosphere, surface and oceans over the course of millions of years. Inorganic carbon refers to carbon bound in atmospheric gases, dissolved in seawater or locked in minerals, rather than biological material. This part of the carbon cycle acts like a natural thermostat. When volcanoes release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the carbon dioxide molecules trap heat and warm the planet. As temperatures rise, rain and weathering draw carbon out of the air and store it in rocks and oceans. If the planet cools, this process slows down. This allows carbon dioxide, a warming greenhouse gas, to build up in the atmosphere again. This part of the carbon cycle has helped Earth recover from past ice ages and avoid runaway warming. Even as the sun has gradually brightened, this cycle has contributed to keeping temperatures on Earth within a range where liquid water and life can persist for long spans of time. Similar cycles in exoplanet atmospheres? Now, scientists are asking whether similar geological processes might operate on other planets. And if so, how they might detect them. For example, if researchers could observe enough rocky planets in their stars’ habitable zones, they could look for a pattern connecting the amount of sunlight a planet receives and how much carbon dioxide is in its atmosphere. Finding such a pattern may hint that the same kind of carbon-cycling process could be operating elsewhere. The mix of gases in a planet’s atmosphere is shaped by what’s happening on or below its surface. One study shows that measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide in a number of rocky planets could reveal whether their surfaces are broken into a number of moving plates, like Earth’s, or if their crusts are more rigid. On Earth, these shifting plates drive volcanism and rock weathering, which are key to carbon cycling. Simulation of what space telescopes, like the Habitable Worlds Observatory, will capture when looking at distant solar systems. Image via STScI/ NASA GSFC. Keeping an eye on distant exoplanet atmospheres The next step will be toward gaining a population-level perspective of planets in their stars’ habitable zones. By analyzing atmospheric data from many rocky planets, researchers can look for trends that reveal the influence of underlying planetary processes, such as the carbon cycle. Scientists could then compare these patterns with a planet’s position in the habitable zone. Doing so would allow them to test whether the zone accurately predicts where habitable conditions are possible, or whether some planets maintain conditions suitable for liquid water beyond the zone’s edges. This kind of approach is especially important given the diversity of exoplanets. Many exoplanets fall into categories that don’t exist in our solar system. These include super Earths and mini Neptunes. Others orbit stars smaller and cooler than the sun. NASA’s Habitable Worlds Observatory The datasets needed to explore and understand this diversity are just on the horizon. NASA’s upcoming Habitable Worlds Observatory will be the first space telescope designed specifically to search for signs of habitability and life on planets orbiting other stars. It will directly image Earth-sized planets around sunlike stars to study their atmospheres in detail. Instruments on the observatory will analyze starlight passing through these atmospheres to detect gases like carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor and oxygen. As starlight filters through a planet’s atmosphere, different molecules absorb specific wavelengths of light, leaving behind a chemical fingerprint that reveals which gases are present. These compounds offer insight into the processes shaping these worlds. The Habitable Worlds Observatory is under active scientific and engineering development, with a potential launch targeted for the 2030s. Combined with today’s telescopes, which are increasingly capable of observing atmospheres of Earth-sized worlds, scientists may soon be able to determine whether the same planetary processes that regulate Earth’s climate are common throughout the galaxy, or uniquely our own. NASA’s planned Habitable Worlds Observatory will look for exoplanets that could potentially host life. Morgan Underwood, Ph.D. Candidate in Earth, Environmental and Planetary Sciences, Rice University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Bottom line: The habitable zone of a planet might be key to whether life can survive there. But so are exoplanet atmospheres, scientists say.The post Exoplanet atmospheres are a key to habitability first appeared on EarthSky.

Chemicals
Climate
CO2

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.