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

California sets nation’s first water standard for cancer-causing contaminant

Water suppliers say the costs will be massive, with rates increasing for many consumers. Known as the “Erin Brockovich” chemical, hexavalent chromium is found statewide.

In summary Water suppliers say the costs will be massive, with rates increasing for many consumers. Known as the “Erin Brockovich” chemical, hexavalent chromium is found statewide. In an effort to protect more than 5 million Californians from a cancer-causing contaminant, state regulators today set a new standard that is expected to increase the cost of water for many people throughout the state.  The State Water Resources Control Board unanimously approved the nation’s first drinking water standard for hexavalent chromium, which is found naturally in some California groundwater as well as water contaminated by industries. Now water suppliers will be forced to install costly treatment to limit the chemical in water to no more than 10 parts per billion — equivalent to about 10 drops in an Olympic-sized swimming pool.  California water systems are expected to spend $180 million a year to comply, including testing and treatment. The water board said the average cost for most people would be less than $20 per month, with 87% paying about $8 per month. The cost rises an average of $135 per month for people served by water agencies with fewer than 100 connections.  Water suppliers warned officials that the costs of complying would hit low-income customers especially hard.  Coachella City Councilman Frank Figueroa said it would cost his city $90 million to install treatment on its wells, which would increase average monthly bills by almost 500% — “an insufferable figure” for the community, where incomes average $24,000 a year per person. Cities and water agencies said they desperately need financial help from the state. “This year’s fiscal crunch does not bode well, and even in a good year, they (state officials) can’t get aid to everyone that needs it,” Tim Worley, managing director of the Community Water Systems Alliance, told CalMatters.  Hexavalent chromium was made infamous by the movie “Erin Brockovich,” which dramatized Pacific Gas & Electric’s contamination of the water supply of a small California desert town. PG&E paid a $333 million settlement to about 600 Hinkley residents in 1996 who claimed they suffered high rates of cancer and other diseases. Levels above the new state limit have been reported in about 330 sources of water supplies in California. Some of the areas affected are the counties of Sacramento, Solano, Santa Cruz, San Bernardino, Santa Barbara, Monterey and Merced. The highest levels found were in Riverside, Yolo, Los Angeles and Ventura counties, although water suppliers may blend or treat the water to reduce the contaminants there. Central Coast resident Ana Maria Perez told the board that her community suffers from elevated levels of hexavalent chromium, nitrates and other contaminants.  “I’m here because the State Water Board has again failed us,” she said through an interpreter. “It’s not fair that many people have to get sick and even die because the State Water Board has not done their job well.” The largest water suppliers will have two years to comply; smaller ones with fewer than 1,000 connections will have four years. Many water suppliers said permitting, financing and construction timelines would make it difficult to meet these deadlines, and urged the state for more flexibility.  “It’s untenable for some of those communities,” said Andrea Abergel, manager of water policy for the California Municipal Utilities Association.  The new standard is one of the least protective of all the water contaminants regulated by California, according to a state analysis.  Public health advocates had urged a more stringent standard because the one set is 500 times higher than the level that state scientists deemed a negligible, one-in-a-million cancer risk. Under the new standard, for every 2,000 people who drink the water for a lifetime, one person would be at risk of cancer.   “Personally, I think we should go lower,” said water board member Laurel Firestone. She voted for it anyway but wants to revisit it when the standard is reviewed in five years.  Max Costa, professor and chair of environmental medicine at NYU School of Medicine, was an expert witness for residents in the Brockovich case. When California regulators first unveiled the proposed limit, he said “it’s not terrible, but it’s not acceptable…The most acceptable level is none.”  Some hexavalent chromium occurs naturally in California’s rocks and soils; some seeps into the environment from industries that work with chrome, such as metal-plating, stainless steel production and wood preservation.  California’s new standard is “expected to protect an estimated 5.5 million people… from potential illness due to hexavalent chromium,” according to a water board report.  California until now limited hexavalent chromium under a combined standard of 50 parts per billion for all types of chromium, including a more benign type called trivalent chromium. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency doesn’t have a hexavalent chromium standard for drinking water. Instead, more than 30 years ago, it set a national standard for total chromium at 100 parts per billion, or 10 times higher than the California one for hexavalent chromium. In response to studies linking it to cancer, the EPA is now conducting a human health risk assessment for the contaminant. A decade ago, California regulators tried to enact the same limit for hexavalent chromium but the regulation was overturned in court because it “failed to properly consider the economic feasibility of complying.”  California regulators said their analysis now supports the feasibility because of the low per-person costs for most people and “because there are sufficient resources available.” They added, though, that they can’t guarantee state funding to assist water suppliers. “Those same dollars are spoken for time and time again,” water board member Sean Maguire said at the hearing today. “Which is why we have so many folks who still are struggling meeting even the current standards that we have today.”  Hexavalent chromium has long been known to cause cancer when it’s inhaled, but until recently it was controversial whether drinking it also was linked to cancer. In 2008, s study showed that rats and mice drinking high doses grew cancers in their mouths and intestines, which scientists say "clearly demonstrates” a cancer risk from consuming it. Roberta Walker, a former resident of Hinkley, blames the contaminant for health problems that have plagued her family and community. The levels of contamination in Hinkley were far higher than the limits the state adopted today. But even California’s new limits, Walker said, are too high.  “I don’t care if it’s a pinch or a lot. A poison is poison,” Walker said. “No matter how you look at it, it’s not good.” 

Reforestation in US East helped keep it cool

According to new research, reforestation in the eastern U.S. helped counter rising temperatures in the 20th century. Learn more here. The post Reforestation in US East helped keep it cool first appeared on EarthSky.

Much of the U.S. warmed during the 20th century. But the eastern part of the country remained mysteriously cool. Now a new study suggests that a century of forest growth, due to widespread reforestation, likely helped keep the eastern U.S. cool as the rest of the country warmed. Image via Pexels/ Lauri Poldre. AGU posted this story originally, earlier this year. Edits by EarthSky. Widespread 20th-century reforestation in the eastern United States helped counter rising temperatures due to climate change, according to new research. The authors highlight the potential of forests as regional climate adaptation tools, which are needed along with a decrease in carbon emissions. Mallory Barnes is the lead author of the study and an environmental scientist at Indiana University. She said: It’s all about figuring out how much forests can cool down our environment and the extent of the effect. This knowledge is key not only for large-scale reforestation projections aimed at climate mitigation, but also for initiatives like urban tree planting. The peer-reviewed AGU journal Earth’s Future published on February 13, 2024. Join our community of passionate astronomy enthusiasts and help us continue to bring you the latest astronomy news and insights. Your donation makes it all possible. Thank you! Deforestation to reforestation Before European colonization, the eastern United States was almost entirely covered in temperate forests. From the late 18th to early 20th centuries, timber harvests and clearing for agriculture led to forest losses. Those losses exceeded 90% in some areas. In the 1930s, there were efforts to revive the forests, coupled with the abandonment and subsequent reforestation of subpar agricultural fields. Those kicked off an almost century-long comeback for eastern forests. About 15 million hectares of forest have since grown in these areas. Kim Novick is an environmental scientist at Indiana University and co-author of the new study. Novick said: The extent of the deforestation that happened in the eastern United States is remarkable, and the consequences were grave. It was a dramatic land cover change, and not that long ago. A warming hole During the period of regrowth, global warming was well underway. Temperatures across North America rose 0.7 degrees Celsius (1.23 degrees Fahrenheit) on average. In contrast, from 1900 to 2000, the East Coast and Southeast cooled by about 0.3 degrees Celsius (0.5 degrees Fahrenheit), with the strongest cooling in the southeast. Previous studies suggested the cooling could be caused by aerosols, agricultural activity or increased precipitation. But many of these factors only explained highly localized cooling. Despite known relationships between forests and cooling, studies had not considered forests as a possible explanation for the anomalous, widespread cooling. Barnes said: This widespread history of reforestation, a huge shift in land cover, hasn’t been widely studied for how it could’ve contributed to the anomalous lack of warming in the eastern U.S., which climate scientists call a ‘warming hole.’ That’s why we initially set out to do this work. Trees are cool Barnes, Novick and their team used a combination of data from satellites and 58 meteorological towers to compare forests to nearby grasslands and croplands. This allowed an examination of how changes in forest cover can influence ground surface temperatures and in the few meters of air right above the surface. The researchers found that forests in the eastern U.S. today cool the land’s surface by one to two degrees Celsius (1.8 to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) annually. The strongest cooling effect occurs at midday in the summer, when trees lower temperatures by two to five degrees Celsius (3.6 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit). Trees provide relief when it’s needed most. Using data from a network of gas-measuring towers, the team showed this cooling effect also extends to the air. They found forests lower the near-surface air temperature by up to one degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) during midday. (Previous work on trees’ cooling effect has focused on land, not air, temperatures.) Reforestation cooling extends into unforested areas The team then used historic land cover and daily weather data from 398 weather stations to track the relationship between forest cover and land and near-surface air temperatures from 1900 to 2010. They found that by the end of the 20th century, weather stations surrounded by forests were up to one degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) cooler than locations that did not undergo reforestation. Spots up to 300 meters (984 feet) away also cooled. That suggests the cooling effect of reforestation could have extended even to unforested parts of the landscape. Other factors, such as changes in agricultural irrigation, may have also had a cooling effect on the study region. The reforestation of the eastern United States in the 20th century likely contributed to, but cannot fully explain, the cooling anomaly, the authors said. Barnes said: It’s exciting to be able to contribute additional information to the long-standing and perplexing question of, ‘Why hasn’t the eastern United States warmed at a rate commensurate with the rest of the world?’ We can’t explain all of the cooling, but we propose that reforestation is an important part of the story. A strategy for climate change? Reforestation in the eastern United States is generally regarded as a viable strategy for climate mitigation due to the capacity of these forests to sequester and store carbon. The authors note that their work suggests that eastern United States reforestation also represents an important tool for climate adaptation. However, in different environments, such as snow-covered boreal regions, adding trees could have a warming effect. In some locations, reforestation can also affect precipitation, cloud cover and other regional scale processes in ways that may or may not be beneficial. Land managers must therefore consider other environmental factors when evaluating the utility of forests as a climate adaptation tool. Bottom line: According to new research, reforestation in the eastern United States helped counter rising temperatures in the 20th century. Source: A Century of Reforestation Reduced Anthropogenic Warming in the Eastern United States Via AGU Read more: Sea level rise creating ghost forests in U.S. East Read more: Wildfires turn world’s largest forests into carbon emittersThe post Reforestation in US East helped keep it cool first appeared on EarthSky.

Mobileye to ship at least 46 million assisted driving chips to customers

Israeli automotive tech company Mobileye said on Wednesday it had secured orders to ship 46 million of its EyeQ6 Lite assisted-driving chips over the next few years as automakers race to make cars safer and easier to drive. Mobileye is selling the EyeQ6 Lite in all major markets around the world, and cars with the technology will be launched in the middle of this year, according to Mobileye’s Nimrod Nehushtan, executive vice president of business strategy and development. “The 46 million represents the amount of EyeQ6 Lite (business) that we have won to date,” Nehushtan said in an interview with Reuters. “So it will grow, and it will be rolled out over the course of the next few years.” Mobileye did not disclose the names of the customers for EyeQ6 because it was bound by non-disclosure agreements. The company counts Volkswagen and Porsche among its customers. The company’s shares rose more than 6% in early trading on Wednesday. The EyeQ6 Lite system is Mobileye’s mass-market product for vehicles with some assisted driving features, such as automated cruise control and lane-changing, but not designed to power ones with higher levels of automation that allow drivers to take their hands off the wheel and eyes off the road. Launching fully self-driving vehicles, such as robotaxis, or ones that require minimal human intervention, has been tougher than expected with steep investments, high safety risks and strict regulations. But in an effort to differentiate themselves amid rising competition, automakers have been adding an array of more basic driver-assistance features. The EyeQ6 Lite, for example, is capable of reading text phrases on road signage, like a speed limit that is only active on weekday mornings, or a city entrance sign that implies a lower speed limit. The chip offers 4.5 times more computing horsepower compared with its prior generation and is manufactured with Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s 7-nanometer process. “It can support all five star ratings globally, but be extremely power efficient and cost efficient,” Nehushtan said. “That’s kind of the mission statement of this chip.” The sensors on EyeQ6L include an 8-megapixel camera that is capable of a 120-degree lateral field of vision that can detect environmental conditions and objects at a greater distance. The company said its more advanced assisted-driving chip, the EyeQ6 High, is set to enter volume production “early next year.” Mobileye is set to report first-quarter results on April 25. —Max A. Cherney and Abhirup Roy, Reuters Yuvraj Malik contributed to this report.

Israeli automotive tech company Mobileye said on Wednesday it had secured orders to ship 46 million of its EyeQ6 Lite assisted-driving chips over the next few years as automakers race to make cars safer and easier to drive. Mobileye is selling the EyeQ6 Lite in all major markets around the world, and cars with the technology will be launched in the middle of this year, according to Mobileye’s Nimrod Nehushtan, executive vice president of business strategy and development. “The 46 million represents the amount of EyeQ6 Lite (business) that we have won to date,” Nehushtan said in an interview with Reuters. “So it will grow, and it will be rolled out over the course of the next few years.” Mobileye did not disclose the names of the customers for EyeQ6 because it was bound by non-disclosure agreements. The company counts Volkswagen and Porsche among its customers. The company’s shares rose more than 6% in early trading on Wednesday. The EyeQ6 Lite system is Mobileye’s mass-market product for vehicles with some assisted driving features, such as automated cruise control and lane-changing, but not designed to power ones with higher levels of automation that allow drivers to take their hands off the wheel and eyes off the road. Launching fully self-driving vehicles, such as robotaxis, or ones that require minimal human intervention, has been tougher than expected with steep investments, high safety risks and strict regulations. But in an effort to differentiate themselves amid rising competition, automakers have been adding an array of more basic driver-assistance features. The EyeQ6 Lite, for example, is capable of reading text phrases on road signage, like a speed limit that is only active on weekday mornings, or a city entrance sign that implies a lower speed limit. The chip offers 4.5 times more computing horsepower compared with its prior generation and is manufactured with Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s 7-nanometer process. “It can support all five star ratings globally, but be extremely power efficient and cost efficient,” Nehushtan said. “That’s kind of the mission statement of this chip.” The sensors on EyeQ6L include an 8-megapixel camera that is capable of a 120-degree lateral field of vision that can detect environmental conditions and objects at a greater distance. The company said its more advanced assisted-driving chip, the EyeQ6 High, is set to enter volume production “early next year.” Mobileye is set to report first-quarter results on April 25. —Max A. Cherney and Abhirup Roy, Reuters Yuvraj Malik contributed to this report.

Why the kookaburra’s iconic laugh is at risk of being silenced

We think of laughing kookaburras as common in Australia and their call certainly lets us know when they’re about. But several factors are driving down their numbers.

Linda Robertus/ShutterstockOnce, while teaching a class of environmental science students in China’s Hebei University of Science and Technology, I asked who knew what a laughing kookaburra was. There were many blank faces. Then I tilted my head, much like a kookaburra does, and opened my mouth: “kok-kak-KAK-KAK-KAK-KOK-KAK-KOK-kook-kook-kok, kok, kok”. I became the “bushman’s alarm clock”. Students burst out laughing. Hands waved in the air. They knew. They all knew. The call of the kookaburra is known worldwide. Why do kookaburras “laugh”? It’s a declaration of territory. “I am here. This is my space.” The laughing kookaburra is native to eastern mainland Australia and was introduced to Western Australia and Tasmania. Wikimedia Commons How long has it been part of the Australian landscape? Indigenous Kamilaroi/Gamilaraay and Wiradjuri people named the “guuguubarra”, so for at least 65,000 years. Genetic analysis suggests its ancestors can be traced back roughly 16.3 million years. So we can be sure kookaburras have been laughing for a very, very long time. It is shocking, then, that the laughing kookaburra is now in trouble. A combination of human-driven factors – climate change, bushfires and land clearing – is rapidly driving down numbers of this iconic kingfisher species across its range along Australia’s east coast. The laughing kookaburra’s call is one of the iconic sounds of Australia. Read more: Citizen scientists count nearly 2 million birds and reveal a possible kookaburra decline Why are kookaburra numbers falling? In 2003, the New Atlas of Australian Birds listed the laughing kookaburra as abundant. By 2015, The State of Australia’s Birds report noted them as being in major decline. What changed? Recent research shows worsening fires are adding to the woes of kookaburras, on top of land clearing, removal of old trees with nesting hollows, state permits to control local numbers and being regarded as an exotic species in Western Australia and Tasmania, where they were introduced more than a century ago. The tree hollows kookaburras need to breed can take a hundred years to develop. Every forest patch felled means hollows are lost. Over the past 200 years, nearly 50% of our forest cover has been felled. Urban development all along Australia’s east coast has continued. The laughing kookaburra depends on old tree hollows for nesting. Ken Griffiths/Shutterstock Read more: Dozens of woodland bird species are threatened, and we still don't know what works best to bring them back Fire is a growing threat Increasing fire frequency and severity due to climate change are having damaging impacts on kookaburras across south-eastern Australia. Megafires – those that burn more than 10,000 hectares – used to occur about once a decade. Now they are happening more often. The 2019-2020 “Black Summer” fires were not confined to one state or season. From September 2019 through to March 2020 they burnt more than ten million hectares of native vegetation. The impacts on wildlife were huge. In the years after fire, the dense regrowth of vegetation gives many birds a flush of abundant resources for food, nesting, cues for breeding and protection from predators. However, dense new ground growth could hinder the kookaburra’s hunting by making it harder to spot prey. This species sits high in a tree from where it pounces on its prey, which is mostly taken on the ground. Research has also shown dense post-fire vegetation has less prey, such as basking lizards, a vital part of the kookaburra’s diet. Research shows laughing kookaburras leave areas of dense post-fire growth. They prefer areas that haven’t burnt for decades. Kookaburras also compete for prey with other birds, such as the currawong. A currawong forages both on the ground and in the canopy. In denser vegetation, this gives it a competitive advantage over the kookaburra. If trees with hollows are burnt down, kookaburras also cannot nest. Kookaburras forced to move to new unburnt or uncleared areas must compete for hollows with other highly territorial kookaburras and species such as parrots, owls and possums. Kookaburras may struggle to survive in areas where fire has destroyed tree hollows and caused dense regrowth. Aldo Manganaro/Shutterstock Read more: 200 experts dissected the Black Summer bushfires in unprecedented detail. Here are 6 lessons to heed State policies aren’t helping The Victorian government has issued permits to remove kookaburras from their territories in certain areas. These included three “Authorities to Control Wildlife” by lethal means in 2022 and another in 2023. The government website says these permits can be issued when wildlife causes damage to property, poses a risk to human health and safety, or is harmful for biodiversity. It is hard to imagine which of these categories justifies permits to kill kookaburras in their native habitat. The maximum number for lethal control across 2022 was four, and three in 2023. However, kookaburras are highly social birds. They live in family groups of about a dozen individuals with a dominant pair, juvenile helpers and young. If the dominant pair has been dealt with “by lethal means”, it’s devastating for the group. Two Australian states, Tasmania and Western Australia, treat the laughing kookaburra as an introduced species. In Tasmania (but not WA), the species is unprotected because of its status as an exotic species. Anecdotal evidence suggests the “first pair” to breed successfully was taken to Tasmania around 1906. But this assumes kookaburras, which are found on other Bass Strait islands, were not already there and could not fly across Bass Strait. In Tasmania, kookaburras are much maligned and it’s legal to kill them – despite this being the one state where the species isn’t in trouble. One concern is that, as a carnivorous bird, its impact on small reptiles and birds is immense. But other birds, such as the two species of currawong on the island, hunt the same prey as kookaburras. The laughing kookaburra isn’t the only species to prey on small animals such as reptiles and birds. Ken Griffiths/Shutterstock Read more: We rely on expert predictions to guide conservation. But even experts have biases and blind spots We can no longer take common species for granted As climate change results in more bushfires and we continue to clear-fell old habitat trees, the fate of the laughing kookaburra – our icon of the ages – could be sealed. That once-ubiquitous call will be heard no more. While considerable resources necessarily go to threatened species programs, it is imperative, too, to give more resources and attention to species we have long thought of as common. If species such as kookaburras and koalas are disappearing, then the threatened species have no hope. Diana Kuchinke does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

New Research Reveals Why You Should Always Refrigerate Lettuce

Leafy greens are valuable for their dietary fiber and nutrients, yet they may also carry dangerous pathogens. Lettuce, in particular, has frequently been linked to...

A new study explores E. coli contamination in leafy greens, finding that factors like temperature and leaf characteristics affect susceptibility. Lettuce is particularly vulnerable, but kale and collards show promise as less susceptible options due to their natural antimicrobial properties when cooked.Leafy greens are valuable for their dietary fiber and nutrients, yet they may also carry dangerous pathogens. Lettuce, in particular, has frequently been linked to foodborne illness outbreaks in the U.S. A recent study from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign investigates the factors influencing E. coli contamination in five different types of leafy greens: romaine lettuce, green-leaf lettuce, spinach, kale, and collard greens.“We are seeing a lot of outbreaks on lettuce, but not so much on kale and other brassica vegetables. We wanted to learn more about the susceptibility of different leafy greens,” said lead author Mengyi Dong, now a postdoctoral research associate at Duke University. Dong conducted the research as a doctoral student in the Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition (FSHN), part of the College of Agricultural, Consumer, and Environmental Sciences (ACES) at the U. of I.Findings on Temperature and Leaf Surface ImpactThe researchers infected whole leaves from each of the five vegetables with E. coli O157:H7 and observed what happened after storage at 4° C (39° F), 20° C (68° F), and 37° C (98.6° F). Overall, they found that susceptibility was determined by a combination of temperature and leaf surface properties such as roughness and the natural wax coating. “At room temperature or higher, E. coli grows very fast on lettuce, but if lettuce is refrigerated at 4° C (39° F), we see a sharp decline in the E. coli population. However, for waxy greens like kale and collard, we get the opposite results. On these vegetables, E. coli grows slower under warmer temperatures, but if it is already present, it can survive longer under refrigeration.”Even so, kale and collard are overall less susceptible to E. coli contamination than lettuce. Furthermore, these vegetables are usually cooked – which kills or inactivates E. coli – while lettuce is consumed raw. Rinsing lettuce does help, Dong said, but doesn’t remove all the bacteria because of their tight attachment to the leaf.The researchers also inoculated cut leaves with E. coli O157:H7 to compare the intact surface of a whole leaf to the damaged surface of a cut leaf.“Whole leaves and freshly cut leaves present different situations. When the leaf is cut, it releases vegetable juice, which contains nutrients that stimulate bacterial growth,” Dong explained. However, the researchers found that spinach, kale, and collard juice actually exhibited antimicrobial properties that protect against E. coli.Potential Applications and ConclusionsTo further explore these findings, they isolated juice (lysate) from kale and collards and applied the liquid to lettuce leaves, finding that it can be used as a natural antimicrobial agent. The potential applications could include antimicrobial spray or coating to control foodborne pathogen contaminations at both pre-harvest and post-harvest stages, the researchers said.“We can’t completely avoid pathogens in food. Vegetables are grown in soil, not in a sterile environment, and they will be exposed to bacteria,” said co-author Pratik Banerjee, associate professor in FSHN and Illinois Extension specialist.“It’s a complex problem to solve, but we can embrace best practices in the food industry and food supply chain. There’s a lot of interest from the research community and federal agencies to address these issues, and the USDA imposes high standards for food production, so overall the U.S. food supply is quite safe.”Banerjee and Dong emphasize they do not want to discourage people from eating fresh fruit and vegetables; they are part of a healthy diet. Just follow food safety guidelines, wash your lettuce thoroughly, store it in the refrigerator, and pay attention to any food safety recalls in your area, they conclude.Reference: “Fates of attached E. coli o157:h7 on intact leaf surfaces revealed leafy green susceptibility” by Mengyi Dong, Maxwell J. Holle, Michael J. Miller, Pratik Banerjee and Hao Feng, 28 November 2023, Food Microbiology.DOI: 10.1016/j.fm.2023.104432This project was supported by the USDA Specialty Crop Block Grant Program (SCBGP) through the Illinois Department of Agriculture [grant numbers IDOA SC-22-20].

California water regulators put major farming area on 'probation'

State water regulators voted unanimously Tuesday to place an agricultural hub in central California under "probation" due to excessive groundwater pumping that has dried up the region. Citing multiple deficiencies in the Tulare Lake basin's groundwater sustainability plans, the State Water Resources Control Board made the decision to toughen usage restrictions and reporting requirements in...

State water regulators voted unanimously Tuesday to place an agricultural hub in central California under "probation" due to excessive groundwater pumping that has dried up the region. Citing multiple deficiencies in the Tulare Lake basin's groundwater sustainability plans, the State Water Resources Control Board made the decision to toughen usage restrictions and reporting requirements in this southern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. "Excessive groundwater extraction can cause long-term overdraft, failed wells, deteriorated water quality, environmental damage and irreversible land subsidence," a draft version of the probation resolution noted. These effects, the resolution continued, both damage infrastructure and reduce "the capacity of aquifers to store water for the future," taking a considerable economic toll. Tuesday's vote constituted the first time in state history in which water regulators used their authority to crack down on community-level groundwater declines, via the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, according to The Los Angeles Times. The State Water Board defines probation as a "first phase of intervention," which requires most groundwater pumpers to cover the costs associated with assessment, planning and enforcement costs. Among the dangerous effects of groundwater pumping in the region has been "land subsidence," a phenomenon in which water removal opens sediment pore space — causing structural collapse and declines in land surface elevations, according to a State Water Board staff report. Water extraction has taken such a dramatic toll that certain spots in the northwestern and western side of the Tulare Lake basin sunk as much as six feet from June 2015 to April 2023, per the report. "My family would not be here if not for agriculture," Joaquin Esquivel, the Water Board's chair, said toward the end of Tuesday's all-day meeting, prior to the vote. Stressing that his grandparents were migrant farmworkers, Esquivel acknowledged the word probation could "come off as punitive, as a failure." "That's not what this is. It's a step in the road, in our discussion," he said. "The decision doesn't come easy." With the region now on probation, individuals who extract more than 2 acre-feet of groundwater annually will need to report this activity to the State Water Board and pay associated fees. For reference, the average American household uses about one acre-foot of water each year — meaning that this requirement would apply mostly to the region's agricultural sector. At the Tuesday meeting, board member Laurel Firestone described the state's role in this matter as a "backstop," while noting that she is “cautiously optimistic” about this step.  "We don't have a choice," Firestone added. "This is the new climate that we're in, the new reality that we're in."

Did cloud seeding cause the Dubai flooding?

Dubai has been hit by record floods, sparking misleading speculation about cloud seeding.

Dubai: Did cloud seeding cause the flooding in UAE?Image source, Getty ImagesBy Mark Poynting & Marco SilvaBBC NewsDubai has been hit by record floods over the past 24 hours, sparking misleading speculation about cloud seeding.So how unusual was the rainfall and what were the reasons behind the extreme downpours?How extreme was the rainfall?Dubai is situated on the coast of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and is usually very dry. But while it receives less than 100mm (3.9in) a year of rainfall on average, it does experience occasional extreme downpours.In the city of Al-Ain - just over 100km (62 miles) from Dubai - about 256mm (10in) of rain was recorded in just 24 hours.A "cut off" low pressure weather system, which drew in warm, moist air and blocked other weather systems from coming through was the main cause. "This part of the world is characterised by long periods without rain and then irregular, heavy rainfall, but even so, this was a very rare rainfall event," explains Prof Maarten Ambaum, a meteorologist at the University of Reading who has studied rainfall patterns in the Gulf region.Media caption, More than double the amount of rain expected in a year fell in just one day.What role did climate change play?It is not yet possible to exactly quantify how much of a role climate change played. That requires a full scientific analysis of natural and human factors, which can take several months.But the record rainfall is consistent with how the climate is changing.Put simply: warmer air can hold more moisture - about 7% extra for every degree Celsius - which can in turn increase the intensity of rain. "The intensity of the rain was record breaking, but this is consistent with a warming climate, with more moisture available to fuel storms and make heavy rainfall events and associated flooding progressively more potent," explains Richard Allan, professor in climate science at the University of Reading.A recent study suggested that annual rainfall could increase by up to about 30% across much of the UAE by the end of the century as the world continues to warm."If humans continue to burn oil, gas and coal, the climate will continue to warm, rainfall will continue to get heavier, and people will continue to lose their lives in floods," says Dr Friederike Otto, senior lecturer in climate science at Imperial College London.Image source, ReutersImage caption, People walk through flood water caused by heavy rains in DubaiWhat is cloud seeding and did it play a role?Cloud seeding involves manipulating existing clouds to help produce more rain.This can be done by using aircraft to drop small particles (like silver iodide) into clouds. Water vapour can then condense more easily and turn into rain.In the hours that followed the floods, some social media users users were quick to wrongly attribute the extreme weather solely to recent cloud seeding operations in the country.Earlier reports by Bloomberg suggested cloud seeding planes were deployed on Sunday and Monday, but not on Tuesday, when the flooding occurred. While the BBC has been unable to independently verify when cloud seeding took place, experts say that at best it would have had a minor effect on the storm and that focusing on cloud seeding is "misleading"."Even if cloud seeding did encourage clouds around Dubai to drop water, the atmosphere would have likely been carrying more water to form clouds in the first place, because of climate change", says Dr Otto. Cloud seeding is generally deployed when conditions of wind, moisture and dust are insufficient to lead to rain. In the last week, forecasters had warned of a high flooding risk across the Gulf. "When such intense and large scale systems are forecasted, cloud seeding - which is a costly process - is not performed because [there is] no need to seed such strong systems of regional scale," says Prof Diana Francis, head of the Environmental and Geophysical Sciences at Khalifa University in Abu Dhabi.BBC Weather meteorologist Matt Taylor also noted the severe weather event had already been forecast. "Ahead of the event, computer models (that don't factor in potential cloud seeding effects) were already predicting well over a year's worth of rain to fall in around 24 hours," he said."The impacts were much wider than I would expect from cloud-seeding alone too - severe flooding impacting large areas from Bahrain to Oman."Cloud seeding missions in Emirati territory are run by the National Center of Meteorology (NCM), a government task force. How prepared is the UAE for extreme rainfall?Preventing heavy rainfall tuning into deadly floods requires robust defences to deal with sudden intense downfalls.Dubai is, of course, heavily urbanised. There is little green space to absorb the moisture, and drainage facilities were unable to withstand such high levels of rainfall."There need to be strategies and adaptation measures to [adapt to] this new reality [of more frequent and intense rainfall]," explains Prof Francis."For example, the infrastructure of roads and facilities need to be adapted, building reservoirs to store water from spring rain and use it later in the year."In January, the UAE's Road and Transport Authority set up a new unit to help manage floods in Dubai.

Removing PFAS from water will cost billions and take time. Here are ways to filter water at home

" . . . While PFAS can be filtered out of water, these "forever chemicals" are hard to destroy"

Chemists invented PFAS in the 1930s to make life easier: Nonstick pans, waterproof clothing, grease-resistant food packaging and stain-resistant carpet were all made possible by PFAS. But in recent years, the growing number of health risks found to be connected to these chemicals has become increasingly alarming. PFAS – perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances – are now either suspected or known to contribute to thyroid disease, elevated cholesterol, liver damage and cancer, among other health issues. They can be found in the blood of most Americans and in many drinking water systems, which is why the Environmental Protection Agency in April 2024 finalized the first enforceable federal limits for six types of PFAS in drinking water systems. The limits – between 4 and 10 parts per trillion for PFOS, PFOA, PFHxS, PFNA and GenX – are less than a drop of water in a thousand Olympic-sized swimming pools, which speaks to the chemicals' toxicity. The sixth type, PFBS, is regulated as a mixture using what's known as a hazard index. Meeting these new limits won't be easy or cheap. And there's another problem: While PFAS can be filtered out of water, these "forever chemicals" are hard to destroy. My team at the University of Notre Dame works on solving problems involving contaminants in water systems, including PFAS. We explore new technologies to remove PFAS from drinking water and to handle the PFAS waste. Here's a glimpse of the magnitude of the challenge and ways you can reduce PFAS in your own drinking water:   Removing PFAS will cost billions per year Every five years, the EPA is required to choose 30 unregulated contaminants to monitor in public drinking water systems. Right now, 29 of those 30 contaminants are PFAS. The tests provide a sense of just how widespread PFAS are in water systems and where. The EPA has taken over 22,500 samples from about 3,800 of the 154,000 public drinking water systems in the U.S. In 22% of those water systems, its testing found at least one of the six newly regulated PFAS, and about 16% of the systems exceeded the new standards. East Coast states had the largest percentage of systems with PFAS levels exceeding the new standards in EPA tests conducted so far.   Under the new EPA rules, public water systems have until 2027 to complete monitoring for PFAS and provide publicly available data. If they find PFAS at concentrations that exceed the new limits, then they must install a treatment system by 2029. How much that will cost public water systems, and ultimately their customers, is still a big unknown, but it won't be cheap. The EPA estimated the cost to the nation's public drinking water systems to comply with the news rules at about US$1.5 billion per year. But other estimates suggest the total costs of testing and cleaning up PFAS contamination will be much higher. The American Water Works Association put the cost at over $3.8 billion per year for PFOS and PFOA alone. There are more than 5,000 chemicals that are considered PFAS, yet only a few have been studied for their toxicity, and even fewer tested for in drinking water. The United States Geological Survey estimates that nearly half of all tap water is contaminated with PFAS. Some money for testing and cleanup will come from the federal government. Other funds will come from 3M and DuPont, the leading makers of PFAS. 3M agreed in a settlement to pay between $10.5 billion to $12.5 billion to help reimburse public water systems for some of their PFAS testing and treatment. But public water systems will still bear additional costs, and those costs will be passed on to residents.   Next problem: Disposing of 'forever chemicals' Another big question is how to dispose of the captured PFAS once they have been filtered out. Landfills are being considered, but that just pushes the problem to the next generation. PFAS are known as "forever chemicals" for a reason – they are incredibly resilient and don't break down naturally, so they are hard to destroy. Studies have shown that PFAS can be broken down with energy-intensive technologies. But this comes with steep costs. Incinerators must reach over 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit (1,000 Celsius) to destroy PFAS, and the possibility of creating potentially harmful byproducts is not yet well understood. Other suggested techniques, such as supercritical water oxidation or plasma reactors, have the same drawbacks. So who is responsible for managing PFAS waste? Ultimately the responsibility will likely fall on public drinking water systems, but the EPA has no waste regulations for PFAS.   Steps to protect your home from PFAS Your first instinct might be to use bottled water to try to avoid PFAS exposures, but a recent study found that even bottled water can contain these chemicals. And bottled water is regulated by a different federal agency, the Food and Drug Administration, which has no standards for PFAS. Your best option is to rely on the same technologies that treatment facilities will be using: Activated carbon is similar to charcoal. Like a sponge, it will capture the PFAS, removing it from the water. This is the same technology in refrigerator filters and in some water pitcher filters, like Brita or PUR. Note that many refrigerator manufacture's filters are not certified for PFAS, so don't assume they will remove PFAS to safe levels. Ion exchange resin is the same technology found in many home water softeners. Like activated carbon, it captures PFAS from the water, and you can find this technology in many pitcher filter products. If you opt for a whole house treatment system, which a plumber can attach where the water enters the house, ion exchange resin is probably the best choice. But it is expensive. Reverse osmosis is a membrane technology that only allows water and select compounds to pass through the membrane, while PFAS are blocked. This is commonly installed at the kitchen sink and has been found to be very effective at removing most PFAS in water. It is not practical for whole house treatment, but it is likely to remove a lot of other contaminants as well. If you have a private well instead of a public drinking water system, that doesn't mean you're safe from PFAS exposure. Wisconsin's Department of Natural Resources estimates that 71% of shallow private wells in that state have some level of PFAS contamination. Using a certified laboratory to test well water for PFAS can run $300-$600 per sample, a cost barrier that will leave many private well owners in the dark. For all the treatment options, make sure the device you choose is certified for PFAS by a reputable testing agency, and follow the recommended schedule for maintenance and filter replacement. Unfortunately, there is currently no safe way to dispose of the filters, so they go in the trash. No treatment option is perfect, and none is likely to remove all PFAS down to safe levels, but some treatment is better than none. Kyle Doudrick, Associate Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Notre Dame This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Hibernating Bumblebee Queens Can Survive Underwater for Up to a Week, Study Finds

Researchers discovered the insects’ unexpected superpower during an accidental laboratory snafu

Hibernating common eastern bumblebee queens survived for a week while submerged underwater in a lab. Rhododendrites via Wikimedia Commons under CC BY-SA 4.0 Bumblebees may be more resilient than previously thought: Hibernating queen bees can survive for up to a week underwater, researchers report Wednesday in the journal Biology Letters. Researchers learned of the insects’ surprising superpower by accident. The discovery unfolded while ecologist Sabrina Rondeau was investigating the effects of pesticide residue on common eastern bumblebees (Bombus impatiens) in a laboratory at Canada’s University of Guelph in 2021. More specifically, Rondeau was studying hibernating queen bees by keeping them in soil-filled tubes in a refrigerator, which mimics their natural winter hibernation environment. One day, when she opened the refrigerator, she saw that some of the tubes were filled with water from condensation—and that four of the queens were totally submerged. Rondeau was devastated. “I kind of freaked out,” she tells New Scientist’s Sofia Quaglia. “I was sure the queens were dead.” But when she removed the queens from the water, they began moving around again. “[It was] really surprising,” study co-author Nigel Raine, an environmental scientist at the University of Guelph who also participated in the 2021 pesticide research, tells CNN’s Jack Guy. “These are terrestrial organisms; they’re not really designed to be underwater.” Rondeau, who is now at the University of Ottawa, suspected the queens’ survival wasn’t a one-off occurrence. She set up an experiment involving 143 common eastern bumblebee queens, placed in individual, soil-filled vials in the refrigerator. Seventeen queens served as the control group and were kept dry during hibernation, while the others were exposed to various levels of water for different amounts of time. For either eight hours, 24 hours or one week, some of the bees were totally submerged, while others were left floating on top of the water. After the allotted time had passed, the bees were removed from the water and allowed to continue hibernating under normal conditions. But after just one day back in dry vials, the formerly wet, bedraggled bees were “fluffy again, beautiful, like nothing happened,” Rondeau tells Science News’ Darren Incorvaia. Of the 21 bees that were submerged for a full week, 17 were still alive eight weeks later—a survival rate of 81 percent. This was not far off from the survival rate of the control group: 15 of the 17 bees that were never submerged, or 88 percent, survived to eight weeks. A common eastern bumblebee Ryan Hodnett via Wikimedia Commons under CC BY-SA 4.0 DEED Researchers don’t fully understand why the submerged bees didn’t drown, but the findings make sense in the context of bee hibernation. Every fall, as temperatures begin to drop ahead of winter, male and worker bees die off, while queens burrow into the ground and hibernate. They can spend roughly eight months underground, waiting for spring to arrive so they can emerge and start new colonies. During that time, their metabolism plummets and they need very little oxygen. Hibernating in the ground can be risky, since it leaves bumblebees in the path of flooding from potential extreme weather events. But, it turns out, hibernating queens may have evolved to withstand this possibility. This is “very encouraging news,” especially in the context of human-caused climate change, which may be making extreme weather worse, Rondeau tells the Globe and Mail’s Ivan Semeniuk. “One-third of all bumblebee species around the world are in decline right now, and so if we are able to discard flooding as being a potential threat to bees, then we can focus our attention on other threats that we know for sure are harming them,” she adds. Dave Goulson, a biologist at the University of Sussex in England who was not involved with the research, echoed that sentiment, adding that flooding “seems to be one small aspect of climate change that we need not worry about” with these bees, he tells the Guardian’s Nicola Davis. Still, many questions remain unanswered, for instance, does being submerged during hibernation have any longer-term ripple effects, such as affecting the queens’ ability to start new colonies in the spring? Can other bees survive drowning, too, or just this species? And what’s the upper limit for how long bees can survive underwater? The findings show “how little we know—and how much there is to learn—about the bumblebee life cycle,” says Elizabeth Crone, a biologist at the University of California, Davis, who was not involved in the research, to Science News. “Their interactions with flowers are one of the best studied phenomena in ecology,” she adds to the publication. “In contrast, we know very little about their nesting, hibernation and reproduction.” Get the latest stories in your inbox every weekday.

The Mission to Save the World Through Regenerative Farming

Josh Tickell and Rebecca Harrell Tickell believe their film Common Ground could drive a global movement. The post The Mission to Save the World Through Regenerative Farming appeared first on .

Filmmakers Josh Tickell and Rebecca Harrell Tickell are trying to build a global movement from the ground up. Which is fitting because for them, it’s all about the soil. In 1997, Rebecca was a 17-year-old actress (the holiday film Prancer) when she first caught a glimpse of her future husband on The Today Show. Josh was an environmental activist capturing global attention for driving his French fry oil-fueled Veggie Van across the country. A decade or so later, it was “love at first sight” when the two formally met at a self-help workshop. They eventually decided to get married, co-produce and co-direct films, and try to change the world in the process. The couple’s latest film, Common Ground, is a follow-up to 2020’s Kiss the Ground and is the second in a planned trilogy of documentaries that feature regenerative farming, a method they believe is crucial for saving the planet by replenishing topsoil and mitigating climate change through carbon sequestration. Common Ground, narrated by Laura Dern, Jason Momoa, Woody Harrelson and Donald Glover, among others, won the Human/Nature Award at the Tribeca Festival in 2023 and, for the first time, will be screened nationwide on Monday, April 22 — Earth Day. For the past 12 years, the Tickells have been practicing what they preach. Operating from their 5-acre regenerative avocado ranch in Ojai, California, which also serves as a film studio, Rebecca focuses on the narratives and finances while Josh handles the crews and tries to infuse the films with as much “sciencey” material as necessary. The couple recently spoke with Capital & Main from their ranch, where they have made a dozen films, raised two children and continue to wage their campaign against the climate crisis. This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity. Capital & Main: So, how did you first learn about regenerative farming? Rebecca Harrell Tickell: Well, we made a bunch of movies about oil, and we figured the only thing harder and duller to make films about would be soil. Josh Tickell: And we both also have our own individual stories with farming. I volunteered on a Rudolf Steiner farm in former East Germany where I saw them using techniques to sustainably grow fuel and use that fuel in their tractor. They increased soil matter over time, and their vegetables, cheese and meats were amazing. This was the ’90s. We didn’t even have the words “regenerative agriculture.” People didn’t even get sustainability. This is before [former Vice President] Al Gore screwed in an LED light bulb. And I was like, “Hello, this is big — this is a breakthrough. We can sustain our species.” And so, that began a multiyear journey looking at agriculture and soil in an inclusive model, not an exclusive model where we go, “Oh, we’ve got to cut out humans; that’s the problem.” Or “We’ve got to cut out animals; that’s the problem.” Rebecca: I come from a legacy farming family, and I’ve witnessed firsthand the real-life impacts of chronic chemical exposure. Like others, everybody in my family thought they were doing the right thing when they stopped tilling and picked up DDT and [the herbicide] 2,4-D, not realizing the health connection to that type of exposure for a prolonged period. And then, we’ve got the clock ticking, and everybody is talking about emissions, and there’s no agreement or solution in sight, and you have the world basically going into a state of paralysis. And the most simple, elegant biological answer is literally right beneath our feet.  But what makes regenerative agriculture the answer in solving the climate crisis? Josh: So, if we look at where the climate conversation has gone post [Gore’s 2006 documentary] An Inconvenient Truth, it’s almost entirely focused on emissions mitigation. We were at a very high-level, sophisticated event recently in L.A. with scientists and entertainers, and there was a speech in which the person said, “Carbon is public enemy No. 1.” That sentiment is the foundation for a misunderstanding of climate. Carbon is the basis of all life. Humans are carbon-based life-forms. So, no carbon, no life. So, if carbon is public enemy No. 1, this is somebody who is anti-life and literally mangling a fundamental understanding of biology and chemistry. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a problem because the concentration is too high. So, if you back off the rhetoric and look more at the fundamental science, the International Energy Agency predicts that we will be burning almost as much essentially carbon-based fuel in 2050 as we burn today. The mix of fuels will change. We will use far less coal as a planet. We will use far less oil as a planet, but we will burn more natural gas, and we will use a lot of resources to build batteries and solar and wind. The misunderstanding of the movement is that within the next 20 to 25 years, solar and wind and all these things will get us to net zero. Using the best predictive models, we have to say no. We’ll be adding 1 to 2 billion human beings into a Western lifestyle. So, we’re going to radically increase the energy footprint of humanity. So, in a way, this is so incredibly depressing — we’re going to miss the target. And so, that then begs the question of what do we do? There’s three simple places you can put carbon: the oceans, the atmosphere or the land. We’ve put as much in the atmosphere as is plausible or safe. The oceans are at max capacity. So, just by process of elimination, we’re down to one location where we can put it: the land. So, the fastest, most scalable, most replicable, cheapest tech we have for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere has existed for over a million years, and it’s the microbial photosynthetic relationship of the carbon cycle of the soil. There is no technology that we have that can scale to 10 billion acres other than regenerative agriculture. It’s not that it’s the best solution. It’s the only solution Rebecca: Simultaneously, we’re degenerating the planet. We’ve lost two-thirds of the topsoil through our conventional agriculture, and a good portion of that carbon was released through those agricultural practices.   Corporations are currently making huge profits through mainstream farming practices, so they will battle any attempts to change the status quo. How do you overcome that? Josh: Well, here’s the difficult thing about a true climate-crisis mitigation strategy. It involves virtually all sectors of the economy and government, including the people we don’t like, meaning liberals on the coasts are going to need to work with people who are in red states in the center of the country and vice versa. There is going to be greenwashing. There are going to be companies that attempt to use this toward their own advantage with abandon. And then, there’s going to be carbon credit trading, which the environmental movement will detest. Because to make the system work, the heroes of sequestration are going to be farmers and ranchers, the vast majority of whom are small landowners in developing countries. And for them to have an extra $10 to $20 to a hundred dollars a month in income is the difference between poverty and not poverty. And so, as the markets develop, they’re going to pay farmers to put carbon into the soil, and inevitably, because humans always trade stuff — they trade seashells, money, Bitcoin — they’re going to trade carbon. What it’s going to mean is that polluting companies can buy carbon credits.  And that is an unfortunate hard reality of the system because if we don’t incentivize the close to a billion people who are subsistence farming on the planet, we’re not going to sequester this carbon in time. So, there’s going to be unintended consequences in terms of polluters getting away with polluting. We have to know that the system is going to be imperfect.  Author and professor Scott Galloway says the No. 1 existential crisis that we’re facing isn’t climate change, but it’s division because unless you get people to work together, you can’t solve the climate crisis. So, what gives you hope that any approach, including yours, is feasible in a world ravaged by divisions? Josh: That is the power of a decentralized movement like this. This is not a charismatic movement. This is not a cult. You do not have an elected official as a leader. It doesn’t rely on a science body. It doesn’t rely on somebody signing a piece of legislation. It relies on real people who have their hands in the earth every day, and we can count on them to want to produce food in better ways. When we premiered Kiss the Ground in 2020, there were approximately 250,000 acres of regenerative agriculture in the United States. We’re now in the third year of distribution of that film, and it remains the main catalyst for putting 35 million acres of land into certified regenerative agriculture. The commitment for this film is to transform 100 million acres through regenerative agriculture. That’s 10% of U.S. agriculture, which means 10% of farmers are actually making money producing healthy food and producing, overall, more calories per acre. According to social scientists, 10% is a tipping point. Once you’ve got that 10% beachhead, it’s not a matter of if; it’s a matter of when. The goal with the third film, Groundswell, is a billion acres globally. That’s 10% of global agriculture. If we achieve it, it will be the largest single climate effort ever achieved. Rebecca: We have to look at what we have in common versus what our differences are so that we can continue to move forward in this very short period of time that we have to course-correct as a movement, as a whole. And I think we’re going to look back on this time as the critical moment where we either decided to band together and find that common ground or that this was the moment where we just accepted that we had 50 harvests left. You’ve been criticized by some people who say that your focus on holistic grazing in your films is not scientifically backed and that it is a flawed strategy. Josh: The way we raise cattle today is a huge carbon and methane problem, and the way we deal with forests, especially in the developing world, is a massive carbon problem. One does not cause the other. So, it’s conflating problems and causality. The regenerative model of holistic-managed grazing is to restore what the ecosystem used to do. The only way to sequester the amount of carbon that we need to sequester is to create deep roots. You can’t grow crops on three-quarters of the world’s landmass, so the only way to sequester that carbon on what is essentially deserted land is to grow tall grasses. And the only way to get tall grasses to grow across those lands is to use grazing animals. You pack them together, and you move them all the time. That way, they don’t eat the grass down to the roots, which is what almost all grazing does today. That’s lazy, and it’s destroying the soil. If they’re not packed together and they’re not moving, they’re not regenerating the soil. So yeah, we get criticized, for sure. I mean, it’s like even having to address this, I understand it, but it is the movement itself that tears itself down. Copyright 2024 Capital & Main

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.