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

A Foot-Tall Elephant? 'Prehistoric Planet: Ice Age' on Apple TV Reveals Surprising Creatures

Apple TV has launched “Prehistoric Planet: Ice Age,” a five-part series that brings the Pleistocene era to life with stunning visuals

It was an incredible time when the Earth was going through immense systemic changes and was filled with often nightmarish creatures — carnivorous kangaroos, 14-foot-tall bears and armadillos bigger than cars. Sid the sloth's eyes would bulge even more.A hyper-realistic picture of life during that Pleistocene era emerges with Apple TV's five-part, computer-driven “Prehistoric Planet: Ice Age,” which takes place millions of years after the dinosaurs’ extinction.“Nobody’s made a natural history representation of these creatures behaving and interacting in the way that we have in this series,” says Mike Gunton, co-executive producer and senior executive at the storied BBC Natural History Unit. This is the third chapter in the “Prehistoric Planet” series, blending cinematic storytelling with photorealistic visual effects and the latest scientific knowledge to give viewers a treat: Nostrils flare, fur is rustled by howling winds and eyelashes twitch. “Within one second of turning the show on, I do not want people to think, ‘Oh, it’s a CGI show.’ I want them to think, ‘Oh my gosh, what’s that animal? Where did they film that?'” Gunton says.The filmmaking style mimics the visual vocabulary of documentary nature shows like “Planet Earth” or “Blue Planet” but conjures up animals dead for millions of years with the latest digital innovations. “Even five years ago, we couldn’t have done it,” says Gunton. “Even in the time we’ve been making it, the acceleration of the power of the visual effects has been absolutely noticeable.”The series is narrated by Golden Globe- and Olivier Award-winner Tom Hiddleston, with an original score by Hans Zimmer, Anže Rozman and Kara Talve from Bleeding Fingers Music.Jon Favreau is co-executive producer and came at the series after directing the live-action/CGI “The Jungle Book” in 2016 with Idris Elba, Lupita Nyong’o and Scarlett Johansson, and 2019's “The Lion King,” with a voice cast including Donald Glover and Chiwetel Ejiofor. “I was very struck by the photorealism we were able to achieve in both of those projects and this seemed like a really good application for using realism in both animation and environmental design and render to create the illusion that you’re actually looking at something real and to apply it to dinosaurs and ice age megafauna,” he says.Gunton, who has produced such nature shows as “Hidden Kingdoms” and “The Green Planet,” turned to the topic of the ice age more than three years ago after wrapping up two dino-filled previous chapters and quickly learned he had a lot to learn. “I was thinking, ‘Well, this is all going to be ice and woolly mammoths and mastodons and saber-tooth tigers,” he says. What he found out was there wasn’t just one ice age but a series of eight, and while as much as a quarter of Earth’s landmass was covered by ice, the rest was becoming arid and desert, changing animals' evolution.There were Diprotodons, rhino-sized relatives of wombats and the largest marsupials of all time. There were giant short-faced kangaroos and 14-foot-tall bears. One of the cutest creatures is a dwarf Stegodon, which resembled a 3-foot elephant. The filmmakers added its baby, standing just 12 inches, and we meet him playing with a butterfly. “A swishing trunk and tail means a Stegodon wants to play,” says Hiddleston. But the little guy gets into trouble when a gang of 6-foot giant storks come hunting. Mom, thankfully, comes to the rescue. “In a world where birds can eat elephants, you should never stray too far from Mother,” Hiddleston concludes.“These animals feel alive,” says Gunton. “That comes from spending 35, nearly 40 years filming animals, watching animals, knowing how they react to each other and also knowing how to photograph these kind of behaviors.”While the look of the series is cutting edge, Favreau points out that it was crafted with artists and traditional technological techniques, not AI, and that helps it connect.“At the end of the day, to be working side by side with artists, animators, filmmakers — there is something that creates a very specific and personal and emotional connection with tremendous specificity, which is still something that eludes the other technologies.”During the ice age, sea levels dropped, creating land bridges and connecting North and South America to create a kind of animal superhighway, with creatures going in both directions and encountering new rivals and food.The filmmakers leaned on the visual effects company Framestore and consulted over 50 ice age specialists to create the series, often using puppets to get the shots right before removing them and adding the visual effects. Fossil records are better than with dinosaurs because many of the ice age creatures were captured in the permafrost.“We see that the species that were most able to adapt still survive to this day, and there are many that didn’t,” says Favreau. “We’re capturing a moment here where there was transition in relatively short amount of time. Even though it would be thousands of years, it’s still a blink of an eye in the history of our planet.”“Prehistoric Planet: Ice Age,” tells little vignettes for each animal, showing how they hunt or mate, travel and play. Gunton says he's not interested in making an endless loop of predators chasing prey. He'd rather show how a pregnant woolly mammoth lost in a blizzard can be protected by her herd.“I think that audiences are more engaged in complexity of relationships and what animals do and how they behave with each other,'' he said. “The voyeuristic kill doesn’t interest me particularly, and I don’t think it interests most of the audience.”Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Nov. 2025

European Parliament Supports Year-Long Deforestation Law Delay

BRUSSELS (Reuters) -The European Parliament on Wednesday voted in favour of delaying the implementation of the European Union's deforestation law...

BRUSSELS (Reuters) -The European Parliament on Wednesday voted in favour of delaying the implementation of the European Union's deforestation law by one year.Companies will have an additional year to comply with new EU rules to prevent deforestation, the European Parliament said in a statement.Large operators and traders must respect the obligations of this regulation as of December 30, 2026, and micro and small enterprises from June 30, 2027.The ban on imports of cocoa, palm oil and other commodities linked to forest destruction is a key pillar in the EU's green agenda.The world-first policy aims to end the 10% of global deforestation fuelled by EU consumption of imported soy, beef, palm oil and other products, but has become a politically contested part of Europe's green agenda.But it faces pushback from some industries and countries that say the measures are costly and logistically challenging.Critics have previously warned of environmental setbacks.Food majors such as Nestle, Ferrero and Olam Agri back the law. They warned last month that delaying it endangers forests worldwide and is contrary to the EU's aim of simplifying business rules.Advocacy group Business For Nature called the delay "a profound failure of political courage".(Reporting by Charlotte Van Campenhout, editing by Bart Meijer and Ed Osmond)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.

Some Suicide Victims Show No Typical Warning Signs, Study Finds

By I. Edwards HealthDay ReporterWEDNESDAY, Nov. 26, 2025 (HealthDay News) — For many families who lose someone to suicide, the same question comes...

WEDNESDAY, Nov. 26, 2025 (HealthDay News) — For many families who lose someone to suicide, the same question comes up again and again: “How did we not see this coming?”A new study suggests that for some people, there truly weren’t clear warning signs to see.Researchers at the University of Utah found that people who die by suicide without showing prior warning signs, such as suicidal thoughts or past attempts, may have different underlying risk factors than those who express suicidal behavior.About half of people who die by suicide have no known history of suicidal thoughts or behaviors. Many also don't have diagnosed mental health conditions like depression.To better understand these people, researchers analyzed anonymized genetic data from more than 2,700 people who died by suicide.They found that people with no prior signs of suicide had:"There are a lot of people out there who may be at risk of suicide where it’s not just that you’ve missed that they’re depressed, it’s likely that they’re in fact actually not depressed," lead study author Hilary Coon, a psychiatry professor at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, said in a news release."That is important in widening our view of who may be at risk," she added. "We need to start to think about aspects leading to risk in different ways."The study also found that this group wasn't any more likely than the general population to show traits like chronic low mood or neuroticism.Suicide prevention has long focused on identifying and treating depression and related mental health disorders. But this research suggests that approach may not reach everyone who's at risk."A tenet in suicide prevention has been that we just need to screen people better for associated conditions like depression," Coon explained."And if people had the same sort of underlying vulnerabilities, then additional efforts in screening might be very helpful. But for those who actually have different underlying vulnerabilities, then increasing that screening might not help for them."In other words: If someone isn’t depressed or showing typical symptoms, current screening tools may miss them.Coon and her team are now looking into other factors that might raise suicide risk in this hidden group, including chronic pain, inflammation and respiratory diseases.They are also studying traits that may protect against suicide to better understand why some people remain resilient even in difficult situations.She emphasized that there is no single suicide "gene."Her goal? To help doctors spot high-risk individuals earlier, even when they do not express suicidal thoughts."If people have a certain type of clinical diagnosis that makes them particularly vulnerable within particular environmental contexts, they still may not ever say they’re suicidal," Coon said. "We hope our work may help reveal traits and contexts associated with high risk so that doctors can deliver care more effectively and specifically."The 988 Lifeline is available for anyone facing mental health struggles, emotional distress, alcohol or drug use concerns or who just needs someone to talk to.SOURCE: University of Utah Health, news release, Nov. 24, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

NYC Comptroller Push to Drop BlackRock Creates Test for Mamdani

By Ross Kerber(Reuters) -New York City Comptroller Brad Lander is urging city pension fund officials to rebid $42.3 billion managed by BlackRock...

(Reuters) -New York City Comptroller Brad Lander is urging city pension fund officials to rebid $42.3 billion managed by BlackRock over climate concerns, the first major move by a Democrat to counter pressure on financial companies from Republican allies of the fossil-fuel industry.Lander's term in office ends on December 31, but his recommendation, to be unveiled on Wednesday, will put Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani in the hot seat when he takes office in about five weeks. Mamdani's appointees will take key positions that hold some sway over the pension boards that decide where to invest retirement funds for some 800,000 current and former city employees.In a November 25 memo to other pension fund trustees, seen by Reuters, Lander urged the funds to re-evaluate contracts with New York-based BlackRock, which is both the world's largest asset manager and the city's largest manager of retirement assets.Lander cited what he called "BlackRock's restrictive approach to engagement" with about 2,800 U.S. companies in which it owns more than 5% of shares.'ABDICATION OF FINANCIAL DUTY'Under pressure from the Trump administration, BlackRock in February said it would not use its discussions with executives to try to control companies. That ran contrary to the hopes of Lander and other environmentally minded investors, who wanted the investors to press executives on priorities like disclosing emissions.In an interview, Lander said the change was "an abdication of financial duty and renders them unable to meet our expectations for responsible investing."His recommendation must still be approved by pension boards that traditionally take cues from the comptroller's office. Representatives for Mamdani and for New York's incoming Comptroller, Mark Levine, did not respond to questions on Tuesday.Lander, a rival-turned-ally of Mamdani during the mayoral campaign, recommended that the pension plans keep BlackRock to manage non-U.S. equity index mandates and other products. Lander also recommended the three systems continue using State Street to manage $8 billion in equity index assets, and that they drop deals with Fidelity Investments and PanAgora, which he said also do not press companies sufficiently on environmental matters like decarbonization.A number of Republicans, some from fossil-fuel-producing states, have withdrawn money from BlackRock and other money managers, accusing them of basing investment decisions on social or environmental issues. New York City funds would be the first large Democratic or liberal-leaning asset owner to respond in kind.Environmental activists also want Lander and other public officials to take a harder line by backing more shareholder resolutions that push corporate boards to embrace policies that combat climate change. Speaking before Lander's decision was announced, Richard Brooks, climate finance program director for the advocacy group Stand.earth, said dropping major asset managers "will be one of the first tests of the climate credentials of the incoming mayor and comptroller. I hope they will recognize the importance and lead on getting these recommendations passed."(Reporting by Ross Kerber; Editing by Dawn Kopecki and Thomas Derpinghaus)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.

Switch to Vegan Diet Could Cut Your Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Half

By Ernie Mundell HealthDay ReporterWEDNESDAY, Nov. 26, 2025 (HealthDay News) — The equivalent of a 4.3-mile trip in a gas-powered car: That’s the...

By Ernie Mundell HealthDay ReporterWEDNESDAY, Nov. 26, 2025 (HealthDay News) — The equivalent of a 4.3-mile trip in a gas-powered car: That’s the amount of greenhouse gas emissions the average person spares the planet each day when they switch to a healthy, low-fat vegan diet, new research shows.The group describes itself as “a nonprofit organization that promotes preventive medicine.” It has long advocated for plant-based diets as being healthier for people and the planet. The new data comes out of prior Physicians Committee research that found that low-fat plant-based diets are effective in helping people shed excess pounds and help control blood sugar, as compared to fattier diets containing meat.  Kahleova’s new analysis looked at the environmental impact of switching to a vegan diet. They linked data from two datasets — the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Commodity Intake Database and the Database of Food Impacts on the Environment for Linking to Diets.The analysis found a 51% daily reduction in personal greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) once a person made the switch — the daily equivalent of preventing carbon dioxide emissions from a more than 4-mile gas engine car trip. As well, switching to the vegan diet spurred a 51% decline in what’s known as cumulative energy demand (CED) — the amount of energy used up in harvesting the raw materials consumed in a diet, as well as their processing, transport and disposal.Much of these reductions were linked to folks forgoing meat, dairy products and eggs, the research showed.According to Kahleova, plant-based diets are gaining popularity in the United States, with a recent survey showing that almost half of Americans take environmental concerns into account when thinking about switching away from meat.“As awareness of its environmental impact grows, swapping plant foods for animal products will be as ubiquitous as reduce, reuse and recycle,” she said. “Prior research has shown that red meat, in particular, has an outsized impact on energy use compared to grains, legumes, fruits and vegetables,” Kahleova added. “Our randomized study shows just how much a low-fat vegan diet is associated with a substantial reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and energy use, significant drivers of climate change.”SOURCE: Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, news release, Nov. 17, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

The long, fun list of things we could do with unlimited clean energy

What could you do with energy that’s cheap, clean, and near unlimited? You could live in a home built to your precise needs that stays cozy and cool all year long. You could swim in a heated pool filled with ultra-pure recycled water. You could grill a steak grown in a factory, from cell on […]

What we could do with cleaner energy is more than you can imagine. | Lucy Jones for Vox; Getty Images What could you do with energy that’s cheap, clean, and near unlimited? You could live in a home built to your precise needs that stays cozy and cool all year long. You could swim in a heated pool filled with ultra-pure recycled water. You could grill a steak grown in a factory, from cell on up, marbled, textured, and flavored to perfection. You could visit a nature preserve on land reclaimed from mines and farms, teeming with once-endangered animal life. You could get whisked comfortably and quietly anywhere by robots, whether down the street or the other side of the world. You could plan every weekend outing for the next month, counting on reliable, far-reaching weather forecasts. And all of your garbage would break down into its constituent elements, destined to be reassembled into new shoes, cars, and refrigerators. Key Takeaways Harnessing energy has been a key driver of increasing prosperity — life expectancy, wealth, productivity. But availability, cost, and environmental impacts have long been major constraints on the energy we can use. Now, a new generation of clean energy is providing vastly more power and rapidly scaling up. With ample cheap power, we can solve some of our most pressing problems and begin to think of new applications. Abundant clean energy can enable vastly more food, water, travel, and industry while undoing greenhouse gas emissions. However, more energy cannot simply get around major social concerns like inequity, job losses, and regulatory hurdles. This is all speculation, but the pace of improvement in clean energy and the scale of its deployment put these ideas within the realm of possibility. Energy shapes the limits of what a society can build, sustain, and imagine, and the more of it we have at our disposal, the further we can push those boundaries. What we would decide to do with vastly more energy has huge implications for our politics, our economy, our environment, and our prosperity.  This year, the world is poised to spend $2.2 trillion on clean energy — power from the wind, the sun, the water, and splitting atoms. It also includes upgrades to the power grid, new forms of energy storage, and increased efficiency.  This investment has mostly been trumpeted as a way to help limit climate change. Humanity’s collective deployment of clean energy and increasing efficiency so far has already helped take some of the worst-case scenarios off the table.   However, climate change is a low political priority now. A more compelling case for clean energy is that it’s often the best way to get cheap energy, and to get a lot of it. The deployment of wind and solar power around the world continues to defy expectations, while the growth trajectory of energy storage is following close behind. This suite of technologies is taking off around the world — not because of a carbon tax or even environmental concerns, but because clean energy is simply better at meeting the needs of a moment when energy appetites are growing.  Suppose we alter the framing and approach solving climate change not as a task merely of curbing emissions, but of increasing access and lowering costs of better ways to power the world even further. It’s an approach that leads with prosperity and quality of life, while creating a more stable climate in the process.  If we make it a priority to get more clean energy, that raises the interesting — and fun — question of what we should do with it. After all, we’re not collecting energy for the sake of energy but to do stuff.  Cheap, clean, plentiful energy doesn’t just help people save money on their power bills; it unlocks new industries, makes thorny political problems moot, and helps repair the planet. These use cases are important motivations for why the transition to clean energy needs to happen and how it can bring about a better world for all of us. It’s why we’re doing this at all.  What abundant clean energy can unlock We can exchange heat and electrons for just about anything on Earth. How much energy a person uses is an effective proxy for how well off they are — how much food they can eat, how comfortable they are at home, how educated they are. We can see this play out in the cost and quality of lighting, which, in the UK alone, dropped 99.9 percent since 1700, tracing how economies grew as people shifted from campfires, to kerosene lamps, to LED bulbs, and beyond.  Energy by the numbers The global energy landscape is changing rapidly. Fossil fuels are still the dominant ways we heat, power, and get around the world, but renewable energy capacity is rocketing upward.  Total global energy consumption is about 186,000 terawatt-hours per year, or about 58 times the total output of every nuclear power plant on Earth right now. The top three sources of energy are oil, coal, and natural gas, meeting 76 percent of the world’s energy needs. The world emitted a record 53.4 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents in 2024. Energy consumption accounted for 37.8 gigatonnes of CO2, about 70 percent of the total.   Burning fossil fuels for energy accounts for 75.7 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, followed by 11.7 percent from agriculture, 6.5 percent from industry, 3.4 percent from waste, and 2.7 percent from changes in land use. About 21 percent of the world’s energy consumption goes toward producing electricity. Wind, solar, and hydropower accounted for 92 percent of new electricity capacity added worldwide in 2024. The world will need anywhere from double to triple the amount of electricity by 2050, depending on the economic growth trajectory. “Energy is prosperity,” said Eric Toone, chief technology officer at Breakthrough Energy, a high-tech clean energy funding firm founded by Bill Gates in 2015. “Energy is the capacity to do work. Energy is the capacity to build things, to make things, to move things.” The potential of near-unlimited energy has been tantalizing researchers for decades, since the last big energy revolution, the dawn of the nuclear age.  “It is not too much to expect that our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter, will know of great periodic regional famines in the world only as matters of history, will travel effortlessly over the seas and under them and through the air with a minimum of danger and at great speeds, and will experience a lifespan far longer than ours, as disease yields and man comes to understand what causes him to age,” said Lewis Strauss, chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, in 1954. “This is the forecast for an age of peace.” Nuclear power didn’t make this dream come true. It did provide huge amounts of electricity, but its construction and operating costs rose as other energy sources got cheaper. Meanwhile, environmental activists and some policymakers shifted their energy strategy to conservation rather than expanding the pool of power. Yet, the prospect of producing energy in such vast quantities that its cost is a minor concern is still one that lures scientists, engineers, and investors. And the recent technology trends do give some observers hope that this dream is within reach. “Long-term, I think there’s good reason to think that at least lots of places in the world will have much less expensive and more stable energy, especially once they’ve made the investment in the next generation infrastructure,” said Daniel Vermeer, a researcher at Duke University studying the future of energy. “And I think that’s going to happen in a lot of places.” How much more energy? “I think we’re looking at double the electricity production,” Vermeer said. So, in the best tradition of economic thought experiments, let’s assume a can opener. What do we open first?  Transform our food system If we vastly increase our energy supply from current levels, food and water are where we can get the most bang for the British Thermal Unit (BTU). “It’s so fundamental to human prosperity,” Vermeer said. “It’s also where people will see benefits the fastest.” First, we can get a lot more out of our existing farms We already spend a huge amount of our energy to produce food, and agriculture accounts for one-third of humanity’s greenhouse gas output. The fertilizer used to grow crops alone accounts for 5 percent of the world’s greenhouse gases — more than aviation and shipping combined — and most fertilizers rely on natural gas as a feedstock. If we had the power and materials to produce more zero-emissions fertilizer, farmers could extract greater yields from the same amount of land. And decarbonizing the supply chain with electric tractors and trucks to bring food to markets would further increase efficiency. Getting the most out of our existing farms will be essential to feeding the world’s growing population. Otherwise, expanding farms will continue to devour forests and wildlands.   Your tastiest fruit will grow closer to you The next generation of farming techniques could create similar yields on even smaller plots of land, allowing food to be produced year round, nearer to major population centers or even within them. One approach is vertical farming, where crops are grown vertically in controlled indoor environments instead of horizontally across fields. Many vertical farming techniques are already being used today. But with more cheap energy to run pumps, lights, and fans, we can scale this up further.  We can sip from the seas Water is essential to all life as we know it, and we haven’t been doing a great job of judiciously using it. In recent years, some major cities have been teetering on the brink of running out of water. And with average temperatures rising, many regions are poised to see more severe droughts.  However, two-thirds of the world is covered in water, and widespread desalination would allow the world to tap into that vast, currently undrinkable supply. The main techniques for desalination are distillation and reverse osmosis, and right now, both require a lot of energy. But, if there’s a lot of cheap power on tap, then desalination could be a primary source of water for some communities, allowing freshwater rivers and aquifers to recharge. It would also resolve many of the political conflicts around water.  Our meals can give us perfect nourishment Unlimited energy could allow us to bioengineer our food sources from individual nutrients to maximize nourishment. Precision fermentation, or electro-food, is an emerging technology that uses specially designed microorganisms like yeast or bacteria to make proteins, fats, or nutrients like those found in animal products. Instead of raising cows or chickens, you could “brew” milk, eggs, or meat ingredients in fermentation tanks — just like the process of making beer. Cheap, clean electricity can power these breweries as they use captured carbon and hydrogen as ingredients. Companies are already selling animal-free dairy and egg proteins made this way. As renewable power becomes abundant, precision fermentation could scale up, feeding growing populations with a fraction of the land, water, and emissions of traditional agriculture Imagine grilling the perfect burger Now, let’s take precision fermentation even further. Cultivating cells into whole steaks is starting to become possible, but it’s an expensive and involved process. If this could truly get off the ground, it would have huge knock-on benefits for the environment. Raising livestock right now draws a huge toll in terms of land use, energy and water consumption, and waste production, not to mention the immense ethical problems embedded in raising and killing animals for food. If we can turn energy into meat that replaces conventional livestock, that would solve so many environmental issues all at once. But, convincing people to eat it remains a barrier. Already, there are seven states that have banned lab-grown meat. “Laboratory agriculture and producing things without animals is possible from a technical perspective, but we have to get a lot more sophisticated about how people make those decisions,” Toone said.  Can AI play a positive role here? Whether or not you’re bullish on AI, it’s clear that more of our jobs and lives hinge on access to computing power and storage. Right now, data centers are a big part of the story of growing electricity demand, and speculation about their future energy needs is already starting to drive up electricity prices for ordinary people.  But with fewer energy constraints, more computing tools could become available to more people, and these resources can then be used to resolve some of our biggest energy and environmental challenges. It may also be a necessary investment for the US to retain a competitive edge. “I, for one, have become completely convinced that it’s necessary to win at AI for national security,” said Neil Chatterjee, a former commissioner on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. “How do we generate the power to win the AI race while keeping electricity affordable and not backsliding? There’s no simple solution, but I’m confident we can get there.” How can we mitigate their worst effects?  Utilities can require tech firms to pay a deposit to for their future power needs so they don’t over-inflate their needs. Data centers can also face mandates to bring their own generation and energy storage, which could also support the broader grid.  Operators of these facilities can shift energy-intensive tasks to low-demand periods, though this flexibility may be limited. Their size incentivizes efficient electricity use, and computing will likely grow more energy-efficient over time as the technology improves.  AI can further accelerate the clean-energy transition by streamlining permitting applications for wind and solar projects, improving materials design, enhancing weather forecasting, and strengthening models of energy demand. More energy will help us clean up our mess With food and water sorted, we can then start to chip away at the root cause of climate change: the rising concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels that are heating up the planet. Halting climate change thus means stopping these emissions entirely. And in the increasingly likely scenario where we overshoot our goal of limiting global average temperatures from rising more than 1.5 degrees Celsius, it also means deliberately pulling carbon back out from the environment. It’s not enough to simply produce more energy; the world needs negative greenhouse gas emissions. We can begin to undo climate change on a planetary scale Humanity currently spews more than 40 gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year. So, to move the needle, we need to think about carbon management solutions that can work on this scale.  There are a few ways to do this. One is capturing carbon dioxide at the source. At conventional coal and natural gas-fired power plants, carbon capture systems currently impose a large parasitic load, around a quarter of the generator’s power output. That makes it hard to build a business case for carbon capture at fossil fuel power plants. But other industrial processes, like steel production, also emit carbon dioxide, and point-source capture can decarbonize this and other processes that don’t currently have an easy zero-emissions alternative.  We can also capture carbon dioxide straight from the air. There are already companies developing machines that can filter carbon from the atmosphere. Some businesses are also working on ways to pull carbon dioxide dissolved in seawater. The challenge is that it requires a lot of energy to move the amount of air and water needed to draw out significant amounts of carbon, which in turn raises the cost.  “Two things have to happen: One is that we have to continue to work to bring down the cost of air capture,” Toone said. Currently, it costs around $500 per ton to pull carbon dioxide out of the air. The goal is to get it down to $100 per ton or less. “Then societies have to become affluent enough that they’re willing to do it and recognize the dangers caused by climate change,” Toone added. Another approach is enhanced weathering, which speeds up natural processes where rocks like limestone react with carbon dioxide in rainwater, forming a chemical bond that permanently locks it away. If you don’t lock away carbon dioxide, you can put it to work. It’s an important raw ingredient for chemicals and materials. You can use it to make fuels reconstituted from the air, polymers, enzymes, concrete, as well as make your drinks bubbly. This has the potential to become a trillion-dollar industry. All of our waste could be renewed Waste is a mounting problem, and many synthetic materials like plastics have no natural mechanisms that break them down, making them a problem that can last for generations. Recycling plastic materials has largely failed to live up to the promise, and the bulk of plastic waste ends up in landfills. To meaningfully reuse and reconstitute polymers, the process needs to be competitive with producing virgin materials, which means the energy you use for recycling has to be dirt cheap. When we get there, we may be able to close the loop, making, unmaking, and remaking everything we need with minimal extraction from the Earth.  We can travel the world and only leave behind a tiny footprint The next place to look is transportation. Cheap fossil fuels have shrunk the world, allowing people to cross continents and oceans in hours rather than months. How we get around is now the second-largest source of greenhouse gas emissions. Four-wheeled vehicles already have a glide path to zero emissions with electrification. The tougher challenges are going to be electrifying or decarbonizing bigger vehicles like ships and airplanes.  Cleanly cruise the high seas Container ships are the gargantuan worker ants of the global economy, transporting just about every tangible good around the world. Right now, most container ships burn some of the cheapest and dirtiest fuels imaginable, but with abundant clean energy, they could draw on cleaner sources of power. These ships may be too big to run on batteries, but with much cheaper, clean electricity, shipping companies can generate hydrogen, ammonia, methanol, or synthetic versions of conventional fuels, moving cargo without the carbon footprint.  Take to the skies Climate-friendly flying is still trying to get off the ground. Right now, there aren’t any batteries that come anywhere close to the energy density of fossil fuels. Some airlines are deploying electric aircraft on shorter routes. However, without a breakthrough, long-haul flights will need to run on synthetic zero-emissions fuels, which demand vast quantities of low-cost energy. Or, they’ll need a mechanism like direct air capture to offset their emissions.  The really far-out ideas With even more energy, we can begin thinking about commercializing promising innovations that exist only in labs or are still on the drawing board. Many of these ideas sound far-fetched, but abundant clean energy moves them into the realm of possibility.  Materials built molecule-first Imagine designing stuff the way you’d build a playlist: starting from tiny pieces and crafting exactly what you need. Shoes that bounce just right. Home insulation that actually understands seasons. Skin grafts that heal without scars. We already 3D print things, but scaling it is pricey and slow. Smarter, custom materials could make industrial printing faster, cleaner, and way less wasteful. Space that’s closer — and cleaner Getting to orbit still takes a ton of energy, and today’s rocket fuels leave a pretty heavy carbon footprint. Pulling carbon dioxide out of the air could help offset launches, and cleaner electricity can make low-carbon fuels from the start. The result: space access that’s not just cheaper, but easier on the planet. Solar power that never sleeps Above the atmosphere, sunlight doesn’t quit. Space-based solar collectors could soak up that uninterrupted energy and beam it back to Earth via microwaves. No clouds, no sunsets — just steady power when we need it. Become a spacefaring civilization And instead of dragging every nut and bolt off Earth, we could mine asteroids for the raw materials already floating out there. That opens the door to building more in space — moon bases, deep-space missions, the whole sci-fi starter kit — without the crushing cost of launching every ounce from Earth. An immense surge of clean energy will have unintended consequences, too Even if we could realize all of the exciting potential of this clean energy-powered future, some new problems could emerge if we’re not careful. First, there will be a big dislocation in the job market. There are almost 2 million people in the US working in coal, oil, and gas sectors — mining, building, transporting, and combusting these fuels. They will need new jobs or a soft landing pad that will help them move or retire. “We’re potentially seeing huge shifts in governance and unionization around the world,” said Adam Cowart, who is on the faculty of foresight at the University of Houston. Additionally, “abundant” does not necessarily mean “equal” when it comes to energy. In the year 2025, there are still 685 million people in the world who don’t have access to electricity, and there’s no guarantee that increasing the global supply of energy will benefit them without concerted policies to match. Having more energy could also end up indulging people’s worst impulses. Already, we’ve seen across much of the world that as fuels and electricity get cheaper, people end up driving bigger cars over longer distances, running their thermostats less efficiently, and eating more meat. Valerie Thomas, professor of industrial engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology, noted that our recent history shows that we have not used the energy we already have in a judicious way. “If we look back in history just a little bit, what do we do? We use it up on things maybe we don’t even understand, like bigger houses with more air conditioning, or we would commute even longer distances,” Thomas said. It will take concerted effort to make sure new energy doesn’t just go to frivolous uses. And in her work looking at some of the poorest populations in the world, Thomas said she found that the key limits to prosperity are often things like local corruption, a lack of prenatal care, not enough vaccines, political instability, and bad economic policies. “What tends to be the barrier to the good life? I don’t think it’s energy,” Thomas said. That said, the world’s poorest stand to gain the most from the transition to clean energy, not just for having more useful power in their lives but breathing in less pollution and having more economic autonomy.  The post-energy abundance world is not one where every problem is solved, but it’s one with greater prosperity, improved human welfare, and generally a more stable climate. It will raise its own challenges, so there’s no scenario where we can take it for granted.  The fossil fuel era, and much of human history, was governed by constraints. The age of clean energy is poised to be one that’s more limited by imagination and choices, and the remaining solutions will be much more fun to implement.  This series was supported by a grant from Arnold Ventures. Vox had full discretion over the content of this reporting.

AI Is Coming for Your Toddler’s Bedtime Story

I began this morning, as I do every morning, by reading my daughter a book. Today it was Arthur Dorros’ Abuela, illustrated by Elisa Kleven. Abuela is a sweet story about a girl who imagines that she and her grandmother leap into the sky and soar around New York City. Dorros does an elegant job […]

I began this morning, as I do every morning, by reading my daughter a book. Today it was Arthur Dorros’ Abuela, illustrated by Elisa Kleven. Abuela is a sweet story about a girl who imagines that she and her grandmother leap into the sky and soar around New York City. Dorros does an elegant job weaving Spanish words and phrases throughout the text, often allowing readers to glean their meaning rather than translating them directly. When Rosalba, the bilingual granddaughter, discovers she can fly, she calls to her grandmother, “Ven, Abuela. Come, Abuela.” Her Spanish-speaking grandmother replies simply, “Sí, quiero volar.” Their language use reflects who they are—a move that plenty of authors who write for adults fail to make. Abuela was one of my favorite books growing up, and it’s one of my 2-year-old’s favorites now. (And yes, we’re reading my worn old copy.) She loves the idea of a flying grandma; she loves learning bits of what she calls Fanish; she loves the bit when Rosalba and Abuela hitch a ride on an airplane, though she worries it might be too loud. Most of all, though, she loves Kleven’s warm yet antic illustrations, which capture urban life in nearly pointillist detail. Every page gives her myriad things to look for and gives us myriad things to discuss. (Where are the dogs? What does Rosalba’s tío sell in his store? Why is it scary when airplanes are loud?) I’ve probably read Abuela 200 times since we swiped it from my parents over the summer, and no two readings have been the same. I don’t start all my days with books as rich as Abuela, though. Sometimes, my daughter chooses the books I wish she wouldn’t: ones that have wandered into our house as gifts, or in a big stack someone was giving away, and that I have yet to purge. These books have garish, unappealing computer-rendered art. Some of them have nursery rhymes as text, and the rest have inane rhymes that don’t quite add up to a story. One or two are Jewish holiday-oriented, and a couple more are tourist souvenirs. Not a single one of these books has a named author or illustrator. None of their publishers, all of which are quite small, responded to my requests for interviews, but I strongly suspect that these books were written and generated by AI—and that I’m not supposed to guess. The maybe-AI book that has lasted the longest in our house is a badly illustrated Old MacDonald Has a Farm. Its animals are inconsistently pixelated around the edges; the pink circles on its farmer’s cheeks vary significantly in size from page to page, and his hands appear to have second thumbs instead of pinkies. All of these irregularities are signs of AI, according to the writer and illustrator Karen Ferreira, who runs an author coaching program called Children’s Book Mastery. On her program’s site, she warns that because AI cannot create a series of images using the same figures, it generates characters that are—even if only subtly—dissimilar from page to page. Noting this in our Old MacDonald, I checked to see whether it was copyrighted, because the US copyright office has ruled out copyright for images created by machine learning. Where other board books have copyright symbols and information—often the illustration and text copyright holders are different—this one reads only, “All rights reserved.” It’s unclear what these “rights” refer to, given that there is no named holder; it’s possible that the publisher is gesturing at the design, but equally possible that the statement is a decoy with no legal meaning. What makes a good children’s book, and how much does it matter if a children’s book is good? I have many objections to maybe-AI books like this one. They’re ugly, whereas all our other children’s books are whimsical, beautiful, or both. They aren’t playful or sly or surprising. Their prose has no rhythm, in contrast to, let’s say, Sandra Boynton’s Barnyard Dance! and Dinosaur Dance!, which have beats that inspire toddlers to leap up and perform. (The author-illustrator Mo Willems has said children’s books are “meant to be played, not just to be read.”) They don’t give my daughter much to notice or me much to riff on, which means she gets sick of them quickly. If she chooses one, she’s often done with it in under a minute. It gives me a vague sting of guilt to donate such uninspiring books, but I still do, since the only other option is the landfill. I imagine they’ll end up there anyway. But I should admit that I also dislike the books that trigger my AI radar—that uncanny-valley tingle you get when something just seems inhuman—out of bias. I am a writer and translator, a person whose livelihood is entirely centered and dependent on living in a society that values human creativity, and just the thought of a children’s book generated by AI upsets me. Some months ago, I decided I wanted to know whether my bias was right. After all, there are legions of bad children’s books written and illustrated (or stock photo–collaged) by humans. Are those books meaningfully and demonstrably different from AI ones? If they are, how big a threat is AI to quality children’s publishing, and does it also threaten children’s learning? In a sense, my questions—not all of which are answerable—boil down to this: What makes a good children’s book, and how much does it matter if a children’s book is good? I’m not the only one worried about this. My brother- and sister-in-law, proud Minnesotans, recently sent us a book called Count On Minnesota—state merch, precisely the sort of thing that’s set my AI alarms ringing in the past—whose publisher, Gibbs Smith, includes a warning on the back beside the copyright notice: “No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner for the purpose of training artificial intelligence technologies and systems.” Count On Minnesota is nearly wordless and has no named author, but the names of its artist and designer, Nicole LaRue and Brynn Evans, sit directly below the AI statement, reminding readers who will be harmed if Count On Minnesota gets scraped to train large vision models despite its copyright language. In this sense, children’s literature is akin to the many, many other fields that generative AI threatens. There’s a danger that machines will take authors’ and illustrators’ jobs, and the data sets on which they were trained have already taken tremendous amounts of intellectual property. Larry Law, executive director of the Great Lakes Independent Booksellers Association, told me that his organization’s member stores are against AI-created books—and, as a matter of policy, refuse to stock anything they suspect or know was generated by a large language or vision model—because “as an association, we value artists and authors and publishers and fundamentally believe that AI steals from artists.” Still, Law and many of GLIBA’s members are comfortable using AI to streamline workflow. So are many publishers. Both corporate publishing houses and some reputable independent ones are at least beginning to use AI to create the marketing bibles called tip sheets and other internal sales documents. According to industry sources I spoke to on background, some corporate publishers are also testing large language and vision models’ capacities to create children’s books, but their attempts aren’t reaching the market. The illustrations aren’t good enough yet, and it’s still easier to have a human produce text than to make a person coach and edit a large language model. “Kids are weird! They’re joyfully weird, and if you spend time with them and are able to get that weirdness and that playfulness out of them, you can really understand why a moralizing book really comes across as gross.” Other publishers, meanwhile, are shying away. Dan Brewster, owner of Prologue Bookshop in Columbus, Ohio—a shop with an explicit anti-AI policy—told me, “The publisher partners we work with every day have not done anything to make me suspect them” of generating text or illustrations with AI; many, he added, have told him, “‘You’re never going to see that from us.’” (Whether that’s true, of course, remains to be seen.) In contrast, Brewster has grown more cautious in his acquisitions of self-published books and those released by very small independent presses. He sees these as higher AI risks, as does Timothy Otte, a co-owner and buyer at Minneapolis’ Wild Rumpus, a beloved 33-year-old children’s bookstore. Its legacy and reach, he says, means they “get both traditionally published authors and self-published authors reaching out asking you to stock their book. That was true before AI was in the picture. Now, some of those authors that are reaching out, it is clear that what they’re pitching to me was at least partly, if not entirely, generated by AI.” Otte always says no, both on the grounds Law described and because the books are no good. The art often has not just inconsistencies, but errors: Rendering models aren’t great at getting the right number of toes on a paw. The text can be equally full of mistakes, as children’s librarian Sondra Eklund writes in a horrified blog post about acquiring a book about rabbits from children’s publisher Bold Kids, only to discover that she’d bought an AI book so carelessly produced that it informs readers that rabbits “can even make their own clothes…and can help you out with gardening.” (Reviews of Bold Kids’ hundreds of books on Amazon suggest that its rabbit book isn’t the only one with such issues. Bold Kids did not respond to repeated efforts to reach them for comment.) The text of more edited AI books, meanwhile, tends to condescend to young readers. Otte often sees books whose authors have “decided that there is a moral that they want to give to children, and they have asked a large language model to spit out a picture book that shows a kid coming up against some sort of problem and being given a moral solution.” In his experience, that isn’t what children want or how they learn. “Kids are weird!” Otte says. “They’re joyfully weird, and if you spend time with them and are able to get that weirdness and that playfulness out of them, you can really understand why a moralizing book really comes across as gross. The number of times I’ve seen kids make a stank face at a book that’s telling them how to be!” AI could be no menace at all to picture-book classics, but it could make high-quality contemporary board books go extinct. But is a lazy, moralizing AI book any worse than a lazy, moralizing one written by a person? When I put this question to Otte, the only distinction he could come up with was the “ancillary ethical concerns of water usage and the environmental impact that a large language model currently has.” Other book buyers, though, pointed out that while AI can imitate a particular writer or designer’s style or mash multiple perspectives together, it cannot have a point of view of its own. Plenty of big publishers create picture books and board books—which are simple, sturdy texts printed on cardstock heavy enough to be gnawed on by a teething 8-month-old—in-house, using stock photos and releasing them without an author’s name. Very rarely is the result much good, and yet each publisher does have its own visual signature. If you’re a millennial, you can likely close your eyes and summon the museum-text layout of the pages in a DK Eyewitness book. It’s idiosyncratic even if it’s not particularly special. To deny our children even that is to assume, in a sense, that they have no point of view: that they can’t tell one book from another and wouldn’t care if they could. Frankly, though, I’m less concerned with the gap between bad AI and bad human than I am with the yawning chasm between bad AI and good human, since bad children’s books by humans are the ones more likely to become rarer or cease existing. If rendering models get good enough that corporate publishers stop asking humans to slap together, let’s say, stock-photo books about ducks, those books could, in theory, vanish. That doesn’t mean Robert McCloskey’s canonical, beautiful Make Way for Ducklings will go out of print. But it’s much less expensive to publish a book that was written years ago than it is to pay an author and illustrator for something new. It’s also less expensive to print a picture book like Make Way for Ducklings than a board book, with its heavier paper and nontoxic (again: gnawing baby) inks. AI could be no menace at all to picture-book classics, but it could make high-quality contemporary board books go extinct. Only instinct and imagination can tell you what Sandra Boynton means when she writes in ‘Dinosaur Dance!’ that “Iguanodon goes dibbidy DAH.” It doesn’t help that everyone from parents to publishers is susceptible to undervaluing board books. It’s very difficult to argue that the quality of a picture book doesn’t matter, since they are the ones that most children use to learn to read. But it’s easy to dismiss board books, which are intended for children not only too young to read, but too young to even follow a story. Can’t we just show a baby anything? According to Dr. John Hutton, a pediatrician and former children’s bookstore owner who researches the impact reading at home has on toddlers’ brain function and development, we shouldn’t. In fact, we should avoid reading our kids anything that bores us. Beginning in utero, one of the greatest benefits of shared reading is bonding, and unsurprisingly, Hutton has found that the more engaged parents are in the book they’ve chosen, the greater its impact on that front. But reading to babies is also important, he explained, because the more words a child hears, the greater their receptive and expressive vocabularies (that is, the words they know and can say) will be. This, starting around age 1, lets parents and children discuss the books they’re reading, a process that Hutton told me “builds social cognition and later dovetails with empathy.” It does this by training children’s brains to connect language to emotion—and to do so through imagination. Hutton presented this as vital neurological work. “Nothing in the brain comes for free,” he told me, “and unless you practice empathy skills—connecting, getting along, feeling what others are feeling—you’re not going to have as well-developed neural infrastructure to be able to do that.” It’s also a social equalizer. Research has shown that reading aloud exposes children whose parents have lower income levels or educational backgrounds to more words and kinds of syntax than they might otherwise hear—and, Hutton notes, this isn’t a question of proper syntax. Rather, what matters here is creativity. Some of the best board books out there bend or even invent language—only instinct and imagination can tell you what Boynton means when she writes in Dinosaur Dance! that “Iguanodon goes dibbidy DAH”—and this teaches their little listeners how to do the same. Of course, not all good board books’ strength is linguistic. Ideally, Hutton says, a book’s text and illustrations should “recruit both the language and visual parts of your brain to work together to understand what’s going on.” From ages 6 months to 18 months, my daughter was enamored with books from Camilla Reid and Ingela Arrhenius’ Peekaboo series, which have minimal text, cheery yet sophisticated illustrations, and a pop-up or slider on each page. My daughter loved it when I read Peekaboo Pumpkin to her, but she also loved learning to manipulate it herself. It was visually and tactilely appealing enough to become not just a book, but a toy—and it was sturdy enough to do so. She’s got plenty of other books with pop-ups, but Peekaboo Pumpkin and Peekaboo Lion are the only ones she hasn’t more or less destroyed. Reid and Arrhenius publish with Nosy Crow, a London-based independent press. I reached out to ask if the company was concerned about AI threatening its business and got an emphatic no from its preschool publishing director and senior art director, Tor England and Zoë Gregory. England immediately highlighted the physical durability of Nosy Crow’s books. “We believe in a book as an object people want to own,” she said, rather than one meant to be disposable. They invest in them accordingly: England and Gregory visit Arrhenius in Sweden to discuss new ideas and often spend two or three years working on a book. Neither fears that AI could compete with the quality of such painstaking work, which, for the most part, is entirely analog. Some of Nosy Crow’s books do make sounds, though—something I generally hate, but I make an exception for the shockingly realistic toddler giggle in What’s That Noise? Meow! Gregory told me that while working on that book, she couldn’t find a laugh she liked in the sound libraries Nosy Crow normally uses, so she went home, set her iPhone to record, and tickled her daughter. A good board book could become one more educational advantage that accrues disproportionately to the elite. But somebody shopping on Amazon won’t hear that giggle. Nor can an online shopper identify a shoddily printed book, which may well be cheaper than Nosy Crow’s but will certainly withstand less tugging and chewing before it falls apart. A risk that Otte and the other buyers I spoke to identified—and while it serves booksellers’ interests to say this, it is also an entirely reasonable projection—is that while independent bookstores and well-curated libraries will continue to stock high-quality books like Nosy Crow’s, Amazon, which is both the largest book retailer and the largest self-publishing service in the nation, will grow ever fuller of AI dreck. If corporate publishers turn to AI to write and illustrate their board books, this strikes me as very likely to occur. It would mean that parents with the time and resources to browse in person would be likely to provide significantly higher-quality books to their pre-reading-age children than parents searching for “train book for toddlers” online. A good board book could become one more educational advantage that accrues disproportionately to the elite. In Empire of AI, journalist Karen Hao writes that technology revolutions “promise to deliver progress [but have a] tendency instead to reverse it for people out of power, especially the most vulnerable.” She argues that this is “perhaps truer than ever for the moment we now find ourselves in with artificial intelligence.” The key word here is perhaps. As of now, AI children’s books are on the fringes of publishing. Large publishers can choose to keep them that way. Doing so would be a statement of conviction that the quality and humanity of children’s books matter, no matter how young the child in question is. When I asked Hutton, the pediatrician, what worried him most about AI books, he mentioned the example of “lazy writing” they set, which he fears might disincentivize both hard work and creativity. He also pointed to an often-cited MIT study showing that writing with ChatGPT dampened creativity and less fully activated the brain—that is, it’s bad for the authors, not just the readers. Then he said, “You know, there are things we can do versus things we should do as a society, and that’s where we struggle, I think.” On this front, I hope to see no more struggle. We should not give our children, whose brains are vulnerable and malleable, books created by computers. We shouldn’t give them books created carelessly. That’s up to parents and teachers, yes—but it’s also up to authors, illustrators, designers, and publishers. Gregory told me that “there’s a lot of love and warmth and heart” that goes into the books she works on. Rejecting AI is a first step toward a landscape of children’s publishing where that’s always true.

Beloved eagle, a school mascot, electrocuted on power lines above Bay Area elementary school

A beloved eagle, a school mascot, was electrocuted on PG&E power lines near an elementary school in the Bay Area. Could anything have been done to prevent it? How often does this happen?

MILPITAS, Calif. — As scores of students swarmed out of their Milpitas elementary school on a recent afternoon, a lone bald eagle perched high above them in a redwood tree — only occasionally looking down on the after-school ruckus, training his eyes on the grassy hills along the western horizon.The week before, his mate was electrocuted on nearby power lines operated by PG&E.Kevin Slavin, principal of Curtner Elementary School, said the eagles in that nest are so well-known and beloved here that they were made the school’s mascots and the “whole ethos of the school has been tied around them” since they arrived in 2017. What exactly happened to send Hope the eagle off the pair’s nest in the dark of night and into the live wires on the night of Nov. 3 is not known (although there’s some scandalous speculation it involved a mysterious, “interloper” female). According to a spokesperson from PG&E, an outage occurred in the area at around 9 p.m. Line workers later discovered it was caused by the adult eagle.The death, sadly, is not atypical for large raptors, such as bald and golden eagles.According to a 2014 analysis of bird deaths across the U.S., electrocution on power lines is a significant cause of bird mortality. Every year, as many as 11.6 million birds are fried on the wires that juice our televisions, HVAC systems and blow driers, the authors estimated. The birds die when two body parts — a wing, foot or beak — come in contact with two wires, or when they touch a wire and ground source, sending a fatal current of electricity through the animal’s body.Because of their massive size, eagles and other raptors are at more risk. The wingspan of an adult bald eagle ranges from 5.5 to 8 feet across; it’s roughly the same for a golden eagle.According to a report from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Forensics Laboratory, which analyzed 417 electrocuted raptors from 13 species between 2000 and 2015, nearly 80 percent were bald or golden eagles.Krysta Rogers, senior environmental scientist at the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Investigations Laboratory, examined the dead eagle.She found small burns on Hope’s left foot pad and the back of her right leg. She also had singed feathers on both sides of her body, but especially on the right, where Rogers said the wing looked particularly damaged. She said most birds are electrocuted on utility poles, but Hope was electrocuted “mid-span,” where the wires dip between the poles. Melissa Subbotin, a spokesperson for PG&E, said the poles and wires near where the birds nested had been adapted with coverings and other safety features to make them safe for raptors. However, it appears the bird may have touched two wires mid-span. Subbotin said the utility company spaces lines at least 5 feet apart — a precaution it and other utility companies take to minimize raptor deaths. “Since 2002, PG&E has made about 42,990 existing power poles and towers bird-safe,” Subbotin said. The company has also retrofitted about 41,500 power poles in areas where bird have been injured or killed. In addition, she said, in 2024, the company replaced nearly 11,000 poles in designated “Raptor Concentration Zones” and built them to avian-safe construction guidelines.Doug Gillard, an amateur photographer and professor of anatomy and physiology at Life Chiropractic College West in Hayward, who has followed the Milpitas eagles for years, said while there is safety equipment near the school, it does not extend into the nearby neighborhood, where Hope was killed.Gillard said a photographer who lives in the neighborhood took a photo of the eagle hanging from the wires that Gillard has seen. The Times was unable to access the photo.Not far from the school is a marshy wetland, where ducks, geese and migrating birds come to rest and relax, a smorgasbord for a pair of eagles and their young. There are also fish in a nearby lake. Gillard said one of the nearby water bodies is stocked with trout, and that late fall is fishing season for the eagles. He said an army of photographers is currently hanging around the pond hoping to catch a snapshot of the father eagle catching a fish.Rogers said the bird was healthy. She had body fat, good muscle tone and two small feathers in her gut — presumably the remnants of a recent meal. She also had an enlarged ovary and visible oviduct — an avian fallopian tube — suggesting she was getting ready for breeding, which typically happens in January or February.Slavin, the principal, said that a day or two before the mother’s death, he saw the couple preparing their nest, and saw a young female show up. “It was a very tense situation among the eagles,” he said. Gillard, the photographer, said the “girlfriend” has black feathers on her head and in her tail, suggesting she isn’t quite five years old.Gillard and Slavin say they’ve heard from residents there may have been some altercation between the mom and the interloper that sent Hope off the nest and into the wires that night.The young female remains at the scene, and is not only being “tolerated” by the father, but occasionally accompanies him on his fishing trips, Gillard said. Eagles tend to mate for life, but if one dies, the other will look for a new mate, Gillard said. If the female eagle sticks around, it will be the dad’s third partner.Photographers can identify the father, who neighbors just call “Dad,” by the damaged flexor tendon on his right claw, which makes it appear as if he is “flipping the bird” when he flies by.

Violent conflict over water hit a record last year

Violence over water is on the rise worldwide. Researchers counted a record 420 incidents of conflict in 2024, many in Ukraine and the Middle East.

In Algeria, water shortages left faucets dry, prompting protesters to riot and set tires ablaze.In Gaza, as people waited for water at a community tap, an Israeli drone fired on them, killing eight. In Ukraine, Russian rockets slammed into the country’s largest dam, unleashing a plume of fire over the hydroelectric plant and causing widespread blackouts.These are some of the 420 water-related conflicts researchers documented for 2024 in the latest update of the Pacific Institute’s Water Conflict Chronology, a global database of water-related violence.The year featured a record number of violent incidents over water around the world, far surpassing the 355 in 2023, continuing a steeply rising trend. The violence more than quadrupled in the last five years. In 2024, there were 420 water-related conflicts globally The majority of incidents were in the Middle East, Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia and Eastern Europe. Russia and Ukraine 51 conflicts Russia and Ukraine 51 conflicts Pacific Institute Sean Greene LOS ANGELES TIMES The new data from the Oakland-based water think tank show also that drinking water wells, pipes and dams are increasingly coming under attack.“In almost every region of the world, there is more and more violence being reported over water,” said Peter Gleick, the Pacific Institute’s co-founder and senior fellow, and it “underscores the urgent need for international attention.”The researchers collect information from news reports and other sources and accounts. They classify it into three categories: instances in which water was a trigger of violence, water systems were targeted and water was a “casualty” of violence, for example when shell fragments hit a water tank.Not every case involves injuries or deaths but many do.The region with the most violent incidents was the Middle East, with 138 reported. That included 66 in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, both in Gaza and the West Bank.In the West Bank there were numerous reports of Israeli settlers destroying water pipelines and tanks and attacking Palestinian farmers.In Gaza the Israeli military destroyed more than 30 wells in the southern towns of Rafah and Khan Younis.Gleick noted that when the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Israeli and Hamas leaders last year, accusing them of crimes against humanity, the charges mentioned Israeli military attacks on Gaza water systems.“It is an acknowledgment that these attacks are violations of international law,” he said. “There ought to be more enforcement of international laws protecting water systems from attacks.”Water systems also were targeted frequently in the Russia-Ukraine war, in which the researchers tallied 51 violent incidents. Residents collect water in bottles in Pokrovsk, Ukraine, where repeated Russian shelling has left civilians without functioning infrastructure. (George Ivanchenko / Associated Press) Russian strikes disrupted water service in Ukrainian cities, and oil spilled into a river after Russian forces attacked an oil depot.“These aren’t water wars. These are wars in which water is being used as a weapon or is a casualty of the conflict,” Gleick said.The researchers also found water scarcity and drought are prompting a growing number of violent conflicts. “Climate change is making those problems worse,” Gleick said.Many conflicts were in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa.In India, residents angry about water shortages assaulted a city worker. In Jammu, India, a woman carries a container of drinking water filled from leaking water pipes in March. (Channi Anand / Associated Press) In Cameroon, rice farmers clashed with fishers, leaving one dead and three injured.At a refugee camp in Kenya, three people died in a fight over drinking water.There’s an increase in conflicts over irrigation, disputes pitting farmers against cities, and violence arising in places where only some water is safe to drink. A man carries jugs to fetch water from a hole in the sandy riverbed in Makueni County, Kenya in February 2024. (Brian Inganga / Associated Press) Gleick, who has been studying water-related violence for more than three decades, said the purpose of the list is to raise awareness and encourage policymakers to act to reduce fighting, bloodshed and turmoil.The United Nations, in its Sustainable Development Goals, says every person should have access to water and sanitation. “The failure to do that is inexcusable and it contributes to a lot of misery,” Gleick said. “It contributes to ill health, cholera, dysentery, typhoid, water-related diseases, and it contributes to conflicts over water.”In Latin America, there were dozens of violent incidents involving water last year.In the Mexican state of Veracruz, protesters were blocking a road to denounce a pork processing plant, which they accused of using too much water and spewing pollution, when police opened fire, killing two men.In Honduras, environmental activist Juan López, who had spoken up to protect rivers from mining, was gunned down as he left church. He was the fourth member of his group to be murdered. A man fills containers with water because of a shortage caused by high temperatures and drought in Veracruz, Mexico in June 2024. (Felix Marquez / Associated Press) “There needs to be more attention on this issue, especially at the international level, but at the national level as well,” said Morgan Shimabuku, a senior researcher with the Pacific Institute. “It is getting worse, and we need to turn that tide.”For 2024, there were few events in the U.S., but among them were cyberattacks on water utilities in Texas and Indiana.In one, Russian hackers claimed responsibility for tampering with an Indiana wastewater treatment plant. Authorities said the attack caused minimal disruption. In another, a pro-Russian hacktivist group manipulated systems at water facilities in small Texas towns, causing water to overflow.The Pacific Institute’s database now lists more than 2,750 conflicts. Most have occurred since 2000. The researchers are adding incidents from 2025 as well as previous years.During extreme drought in Iran worsened by climate change, farmers were desperate enough to go up against security forces, demanding access to river water. Iran’s water crisis, compounded by decades of excessive groundwater pumping, has grown so severe that the president said Tehran no longer can remain the capital and the government will have to move it to another city.Tensions also have been growing between Iran and Afghanistan over the Helmand River, with Iranian leaders accusing their upstream neighbor of not letting enough water flow into the country.Gleick said if the drought persists and the Iranian government doesn’t improve how it manages water, “I would expect to see more violence.”

Analysis-Brazil Environment Minister, Climate Summit Star, Faces Political Struggle at Home

By Manuela AndreoniBELEM, Brazil (Reuters) -Brazilian Environment Minister Marina Silva fought back tears as global diplomats applauded her for...

BELEM, Brazil (Reuters) -Brazilian Environment Minister Marina Silva fought back tears as global diplomats applauded her for several minutes on Saturday in the closing plenary of the COP30 global climate summit."We've made progress, albeit modestly," she told delegates gathered in the Amazon rainforest city of Belem, before raising a fist over her head defiantly. "The courage to confront the climate crisis comes from persistence and collective effort."It was a moment of catharsis for the Brazilian hosts in a tense hall where several nations vented frustration with a deal that failed to mention fossil fuels - even as they cheered more funds for developing nations adapting to climate change.Despite the bittersweet outcome, COP30 capped years of work by the environment minister and President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva to restore Brazil's leadership on global climate policy, dented by a far-right predecessor who denied climate science.Back in Brasilia, a harsher political reality looms. Congress has been pushing to dismantle much of the country's environmental permitting system. Organized crime in the Amazon is also a problem, and people seeking to clear forest acres have found new ways to infiltrate and thwart groups touting sustainable development.All this poses new threats to Brazil's vast ecosystems, forcing Lula and his minister to wage a rearguard battle to defend the world's largest rainforest. Scientists and policy experts warn that action is needed to discourage deforestation before a changing climate turns the Amazon into a tinderbox. Tensions have been mounting between a conservative Congress and the leftist Lula ahead of next year's general election. Forest land is often at heightened risk during election years.Still, Silva insists Brazil can deliver on its promise to reduce deforestation to zero by 2030.  "If I'm in the eye of the storm," she told Reuters, "I have to survive."Silva, born in 1958 in the Amazonian state of Acre to an impoverished family of rubber tappers, was more rock star than policymaker for many at COP30. Like Lula, she overcame hunger and scant early schooling to achieve global recognition. As his environment minister from 2003 to 2008, she sharply slowed the destruction of her native rainforest.After more than a decade of estrangement from Lula's Workers Party, Silva reunited with him in 2022. Many environmentalists consider her return the most important move on climate policy in Lula's current mandate, which he has cast his agenda as an "ecological transformation" of Brazil's economy.It is a stark contrast from surging deforestation under Lula's right-wing predecessor Jair Bolsonaro, who cheered on mining and ranching in the rainforest.Still, Lula's actual environmental record has been ambiguous, said Juliano Assuncao, executive director of the Climate Policy Institute think tank in Brazil. "What we have at times is an Environment Ministry deeply committed to these issues, but at critical moments it hasn't been able to count on the support of the federal government in the way it should," he said.Lula's government has halved deforestation in the Amazon, making it easier to fine deforesters and choke their access to public credit. New policies have encouraged reforestation and sustainable farming practices, such as cattle tracing.Still, critics say Lula's government has not done enough to stop Congress as it undercut environmental protections and blocked recognition of Indigenous lands. Lawmakers have also attacked a private-sector agreement protecting the Amazon from the advance of soy farming.Lula's environmental critics concede he has limited leverage.When a government agency was slow to license oil exploration off the Amazon coast, the Senate pushed legislation to overhaul environmental permitting. Lula vetoed much of the bill, but lawmakers vowed to restore at least part of it this week. Similar tensions in Lula's last mandate prompted Silva to quit over differences with other cabinet ministers. This time around, Lula has been quick to defend her and vice-versa. During a recent interview in her Brasilia office, Silva suggested that Lula had not changed, but rather that a warming planet has ratcheted up the urgency of climate policy."Reality has changed," she said. "People who are guided by scientific criteria, by common sense, by ethics, have followed that gradual change." HIGHER TEMPERATURES, MORE GUNSEarth's hottest year on record was 2024, fueling massive fires in the Amazon rainforest that for the first time erased more tree cover than chainsaws and bulldozers.Brazilians hoping to preserve the Amazon must struggle against more than just a warmer climate and a skeptical Congress. Organized crime has grown in the region after years of tight funding left fewer federal personnel to fight back, said Jair Schmitt, who oversees enforcement at Brazil's environmental protection agency Ibama. Ibama agents have been caught more often in shootouts with gangs, he added, suggesting more guns than ever in the region. "Rifles weren't this easy to find before," he said.Another challenge: Illegal deforesters have also infiltrated Amazon supply chains touting their sustainability, from biofuels to carbon credits, Reuters has reported. To overcome them, Brazil will need to steel its political will, said Marcio Astrini, the head of Climate Observatory, an advocacy group. Other than that, he added, "we have everything it takes to succeed."(Reporting by Manuela AndreoniEditing by Brad Haynes and David Gregorio)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.

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.