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

The 13 best popular science books of 2025

Women's hidden extra work, positive tipping points and new thinking on autism – there's much to chew on in this year's best reads, says Liz Else

Holiday reading: our pick of the best popular science books of the yearhadynyah/Getty Images The challenge here is clearly highlighted on the book’s cover, where “positive” is coloured a bright shiny yellow. After all, we know how tipping points work – a small change makes a big, sometimes defining, change to a system or state. In climate terms, that could mean, for example, that major ice sheets melt, or the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation collapses. The order in which tipping points happen matters too, says Tim Lenton, who has spent years modelling them. But Lenton is after the positives in this excellent exploration of the possible. Pressure from small groups can galvanise change, he writes. Policy at the governmental level is essential, but usually needs the leverage of such groups, disruptive innovation or economic or environmental shock, he says. There are plenty of other factors that can come into play as forcing agents, including personal agency in the shape of individual behaviour, for example eating less meat or adopting electric vehicles. Science popularisers may seem like a wild card, but Clearing the Air by Hannah Ritchie is a bit of a stealth weapon, since it provides data-led answers on the road to net zero. And it helps us to dismiss nonsense claims, such as that heat pumps don’t work in cold weather, or questions like do wind farms kill birds. On the latter, the answer is yes, they do kill some birds, but that number is dwarfed by the annual kill rate of cats, buildings, cars and pesticides. Nevertheless, wind turbines pose a real threat to some bats, migrating birds and birds of prey. But Ritchie points out how to reduce the risk, such as by painting turbines black, and powering down blades during low wind. Lenton is also a realist, urging us to keep our eye on the bigger picture. It is very hard to imagine a time when burning fossil fuels is seen as backward or abhorrent, he writes, but that is “the nature of tipping points in social norms – what beforehand seemed impossible afterwards seems inevitable”.   What could be more stupid than writing a history of stupidity, asks Stuart Jeffries, author of, er, just such a book. Luckily for him and for us, there is a lot to like in this clever exploration of a slippery subject. After all, what do we really mean by stupidity? Ignorance? Foolishness? Inability to learn? As Jeffries says, stupid is a judgement, not a fact – science can’t measure it, except perhaps negatively, by measuring low IQ scores. Jeffries’s quest to understand stupidity is a historical, political and global take, so we’re off on a great philosophical adventure, through Plato, Socrates, Voltaire, Schopenhauer – and multiple obscure and less obscure thinkers. Also included are various schools of Eastern thinking (Daoism, Confucianism, Buddhism and more), which take a different view from the West, in that the pursuit of intelligence may get in the way of personal development or the enlightenment Buddhists call Nirvana. All in all, there are no signs of stupidity in this delightful and unexpected book.   Most of us will recognise this stream of consciousness running as a background to our lives: “Have the kids had enough protein this week?”; “What bedframe would look good in our bedroom?” and the like. This is “cognitive household labor”, the mental labour that keeps families afloat, and sociologist Allison Daminger says it is “missing from most studies of how we do gender via housework”. It is an excellent point in a book that should receive all the positive reviews it can get. Breadwinners by Melissa Hogenboom is a similar examination, exposing the hidden power dynamics and unconscious cognitive biases shaping our lives. As our reviewer wrote, it makes a compelling, evidence-based case for recognising these imbalances and identifying where and how to correct them. Perfect family reading over the holidays.   Unequal by Eugenia Cheng You might think things are either equal or they aren’t, but for mathematician Eugenia Cheng, some things are more equal than others – in maths and in life. Her clever exploration of the meaning of “equals” helps us grasp its mathematical complexities – and the everyday dangers of assuming, for example, two people who score the same on an IQ test are equally intelligent.   This book offers a fascinating opportunity to see art and science reflect off each other in a richly illustrated tour of artwork about the ocean, starting at its coastlines and ending at its abysses. At school, the book’s author, marine biologist Helen Scales, was asked to choose between following an artistic life and a scientific one. Here she indulges both, aiming to select works that “celebrate the diversity of life in the sea”, and to show how artists and scientists working together have played an important part in describing and recording the biodiversity of our oceans. Drawings still play a key role, as Scales recalls a conversation with an ichthyologist, who knew he would need to use both sketching and scientific skills to achieve a true classification of an odd-looking female deep-sea anglerfish.   Discovering the true state of affairs about women, girls and autism – that the prevalence of autism in this group has been underestimated – can only be good. But for neuroscientist Gina Rippon, it is also bittersweet. In this excellent, state-of-the-art account of autism in girls, she admits that by accepting the mantra that autism was much more common in boys, “I have been part of the problem I’m hoping this book will solve”. One person’s story she shares makes the point. “Alice” was a woman with two young sons – one neurotypical, the elder autistic. She had mental health struggles at university, and after nearly three years of pleading for an assessment, she was finally confirmed to be on the spectrum. Alice’s path had been strewn with diagnoses, including borderline personality disorder with social anxiety. But the light-bulb moment came when she took her son, “Peter”, to his first day at nursery school, anxious to see how he would settle. Peter dived into the melee, as Alice watched, stunned. She told Rippon, “He was a native of the world I had been watching from the outside… He just seemed to automatically… belong.” She realised that she was “looking at what not being autistic meant”.   Earth scientist Anjana Khatwa unites science and spirituality in a gorgeous journey through deep time, a personal view of the world of rocks and minerals. She explains how geology is at the heart of today’s biggest issues, how the field itself isn’t known for its diversity – and the origins of the ivory-white Makrana marble that made the Taj Mahal, among other structures.   What is Barney? Why do we remember the Sycamore Gap? How old is ancient? The answers lie in a truly ambitious, very fat, glorious book of trees, complete with maps, photographs and travel notes. It is built round the unusual idea of setting out in search of the 1000 best individual trees that grow in the towns and cities of Britain and Ireland. The handsome book spun out of Paul Wood’s field trip feels like an appropriately slow way to honour organisms that can live to 3000 years and that shape or are shaped by the places where they grow. Savour during the colder months, while you plan your own tree trip.   To understand orchids, think like a matchmaker, writes Sandra Knapp, a senior botanist at London’s Natural History Museum. She is discussing the reproductive habits of Angraecum cadetti in this book, part of the Earth Day series. This is a clever conceit: take any living thing, describe one species at a given hour across 24 hours, and illustrate it (here the illustrator is Katie Scott). Mushroom Day and Tree Day are also in 2025’s crop; Shell Day and Snake Day are planned for 2026. Knapp introduces flowers from everywhere, of every hue, size and reproductive system. There is a nod to Carl Linnaeus: the European chicory’s blue flowers occupy the 4am time slot, in line with his suggestion to plant them early morning.   Wired for Wisdom by Eszther Hargittai and John Palfrey “Do you need help with that?” Few words are as guaranteed to send a 60-plus adult who seems to be struggling with technology into a rage. How refreshing to find a book prepared to sift science from stereotype in what the authors call an especially “unsettled” research area of older adults and tech. One reason for the authors to weigh in early is that even though older adults are an increasing portion of Earth’s billions, they feel ignored – and subject to negative preconceptions by younger people. A healthy and inclusive society, say the authors, needs this older population on board. Among the book’s great takeaways are that older adults are less likely to fall for fake news or scams. Their use of mobile tech is also rising fast, with the number of over-60s in the US with smartphones rising from 13 per cent in 2012 to 61 per cent by 2021. With such buy-in, can we afford to indulge stereotypes?   The two friends to whom I gave copies of this book when it first came out 10 years ago hadn’t heard of Carlo Rovelli, but they both ended up loving it. Now there’s a special hardback anniversary issue out, to remind us that in a mere 79 pages, Rovelli’s lessons managed to span the theory of general relativity, quantum mechanics, black holes, elementary particles and more. After 10 years of polycrisis, re-reading the final chapter now seems to capture the human dilemma perfectly. An ultra-curious yet dangerous Homo on the brink of self-wrought destruction can still marvel at the world, because, Rovelli writes, “on the edge of what we know, in contact with the ocean of the unknown, shines the mystery and the beauty of the world. And it’s breathtaking.” The ideal gift for anyone you know who hasn’t read it yet, in a lovely new package.

Labor’s nature law overhaul contains wins – but we should watch for gremlins in the details | Adam Morton

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act changes are an improvement, but the rush to pass them was purely politicalSign up for climate and environment editor Adam Morton’s free Clear Air newsletter hereWe should start at the beginning in assessing the Labor-Greens deal to revamp Australia’s national environment law. And the beginning is that, ideally, you would not start from here.Despite its name, the 1999 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act was designed under John Howard to allow developments to go ahead, usually with conditions attached that may limit the damage to nature. Continue reading...

We should start at the beginning in assessing the Labor-Greens deal to revamp Australia’s national environment law. And the beginning is that, ideally, you would not start from here.Despite its name, the 1999 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act was designed under John Howard to allow developments to go ahead, usually with conditions attached that may limit the damage to nature.The law does not prioritise environmental protection. It shouldn’t be a shock that it has spectacularly failed to deliver it. There is a case that the best approach would have been to scrap and replace the act.Labor instead chose to amend the existing legislation, arguing it could improve it for both the environment and business, which has complained of long delays in approval decisions. It means the deal announced on Thursday is a repair job, not a complete rethink of how to best protect Australia’s unique wildlife and wild places as the country faces what scientists say is an extinction crisis.It is worth noting there was no need for the changes to be rushed through this year. A committee inquiry is still under way. The Greens cut a deal at least in part because they feared if they didn’t, the government’s offer would evaporate and it would be content to make a much weaker agreement, from an environmental perspective, with the Coalition next year. The deadline was only political. Sign up to get climate and environment editor Adam Morton’s Clear Air column as a free newsletterThe result is the changes have not had proper scrutiny. The independent senator David Pocock had a point when he described the process as a farce. It means there are likely to be gremlins in the laws that will not be uncovered for a while.But let’s look at what we do know.From an environmental perspective: is this deal an improvement on the existing law? In some key ways, clearly yes.The creation of a national Environment Protection Agency with the power to enforce compliance and apply beefed-up penalties is a step forward – if well used. The same applies to the creation of minimum national environment standards against which development applications will be assessed.Plenty about the standards is still not known, though. Only two draft standards have been released, with more to come. As with so much of this, the details will matter.The commitment to tighten loopholes that made state-sanctioned native forest logging and agricultural land-clearing effectively exempt from national laws is a significant and necessary win for nature. The revamp would have been a joke without them.This change won’t stop logging or land-clearing, but will boost legal and social pressure on the logging industries in Tasmania and New South Wales. Anthony Albanese basically acknowledged this on Thursday, saying the forest industry was increasingly reliant on plantation timber – it already provides nearly 90% of wood in Australia – and that the government would kick in $300m for a “forestry growth fund” as it moved in that direction.The Greens’ demand that fossil fuel projects cannot be fast-tracked in the way other developments can – renewable energy and housing, for example – makes obvious sense as far as it goes.It also makes sense that Labor has dropped a proposal to give states and territories the power to make decisions on large coalmining and unconventional gas projects that affect groundwater or waterways under plans to “streamline decision-making”. Water resources are a national issue, and should have federal oversight.Here the politics get a little murky. Did Labor actually ever really plan to give up power over what is known as the “water trigger”? At least some of the “concessions” to the Greens – the commitment to axe the logging loophole, for example – were steps the government had said it was prepared to make, but held back for the final negotiations.skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Clear Air AustraliaAdam Morton brings you incisive analysis about the politics and impact of the climate crisisPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionSimilarly, it’s an open question whether the environment minister, Murray Watt, and those around him really believed an agreement was could be landed with the divided and self-destructing Coalition, despite repeated claims that he was prepared to make concessions either way. If a deal was done it was always likely to be with the Greens. They don’t call Watt a political fixer for nothing.Back on the positives: one of the more contentious issues in the debate over the laws has been whether to include a definition of “unacceptable impacts” that should in theory lead to quick “no” decisions on some developments. It stayed in. Again, the details and interpretation will be crucial.But there are also problems, and many unanswered questions.The amended laws lean heavily on the use of offsets, which basically allow some nature to be bulldozed as long as other areas are protected. As Guardian Australia’s Lisa Cox has shown, offset schemes have repeatedly not delivered anything like what has been promised.The government has proposed a “restoration contribution fund” that will allow developers to kick in cash in return for permission to do some environmental damage. This sort of model, which critics have called a “pay-to-destroy” fund, failed spectacularly in NSW. The negotiations with the Greens have introduced some limits, but many people will be sceptical whether the “net gain” for nature that Watt has promised can be guaranteed.Non-fossil fuel developments will be able to be fast-tracked, with decisions promised in as little as 30 days and in some cases left to the states. The country needs a rapid rollout of renewable energy, but this timeframe risks squashing the rights of communities to test and object to developments.The laws also maintain the existing approach of giving the minister of the day significant discretion over how the act is used. Experts say this includes in some cases the authority to approve developments they consider in the national interest, and a “rulings power” that could limit legal challenges.Finally, the laws go close to ignoring what will ultimately be the greatest threat to much of the environment – the climate crisis. Developers will have to disclose their expected emissions, but this information will have no bearing on whether a project goes ahead. As has been said many times before, this defies logic.It means that – even as some conservationists celebrate victories that have been the result of years of dedicated campaigning – the arguments over what more is needed to give Australian nature the protection it deserves will continue.

Long-sought environmental law reform is finally here. But will the compromise deal actually protect nature?

After years of failed attempts, Australia’s environmental laws are finally getting an overhaul. But will they stop the damage done to nature?

Brayden Stanford/Pexels, CC BY-NC-NDToday is a landmark day for environmental law. After years of false starts and abandoned promises, Labor has finally struck a deal with the Greens to pass long-awaited changes to the federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. The laws are expected to pass the Senate today – the final parliamentary sitting day of the year. Change is long overdue, as the 25-year-old laws have been shown to be not fit for purpose. Australia’s unique species and ecosystems are in real trouble. Threatened species populations are falling year after year, while climate change is driving species to extinction and ecosystems towards collapse. Significantly, neither Labor nor the Greens are declaring the bill a complete success. In its second reading today, Labor Senator Michelle Ananda-Rajah described the bill as “not perfect”, while the Greens described it as falling “woefully short” on climate. Environment Minister Murray Watt was negotiating with both the Coalition and the Greens to pass the laws. While the Greens agreed to the deal and extracted key concessions on native forest protections, Watt has left some wins for business and the Liberal Party. The compromise deal is indeed far from perfect. But after five years of stalled reforms, it’s clear significant compromise was the only way for the laws to pass. What was in the original reform bill? In late October, Labor introduced reforms that proposed a slew of changes to existing environment laws. These included provisions for: making national environmental standards to guide decision-making a new federal environmental protection agency planning at a bioregional scale to assess cumulative damage across a landscape These changes were broadly positive. But other elements raised considerable concern, namely: considerable ministerial discretion over whether to apply the new national environmental standards to development applications a wide-ranging national interest exemption allowing the government to fast-track projects in the undefined “national interest” fast-tracking for some decisions allowing developers to pay into a “restoration fund” to compensate for biodiversity loss despite evidence it worsens biodiversity loss excluding native forest logging from Commonwealth oversight plans to devolve environmental decision-making to states, with the pro-mining and anti-regulation Western Australian government the first in line. The original 500-page draft bill had areas of considerable uncertainty, such as requiring the minister to knock back developments if satisfied they would have “unacceptable impacts”. The idea was sound: create red lines where projects don’t have to be considered if damage to the environment would be too great. But the definitions were confusing and subjective. For instance, an “unacceptable impact” on a critically endangered species was defined as one that “seriously impairs, will seriously impair, or is likely to seriously impair” species viability. But “seriously impair” was nebulously defined as “something if, compared to the action not being taken, the impact results in the thing being seriously altered for the worse”. Industry criticised this for setting the bar too low, fearing it would stop projects in their tracks. What concessions have the Greens secured? While the Labor-Greens deal means the bills can now pass the Senate, it hasn’t fundamentally changed what was introduced by Labor. The concessions include: better protection for native forests banning fast-tracking of new coal and gas projects reining in ministerial discretion. The Greens are claiming their major concession is the removal of a longstanding exemption for the logging industry for areas of native forest covered by Regional Forest Agreements. Forested areas under these agreements currently have no protection from federal environment laws. Under the changes, these agreements will have to comply with the laws and meet higher standards within 18 months. The deal contains compensation for forestry workers. This is a clear win for the environment. The Greens also secured modest progress on climate, but far short of their long-sought climate trigger, which was a non-starter for Labor. Instead, the bill will be amended to remove coal and gas projects from fast-tracked approvals and to prevent the minister from declaring these to be projects to be in the “national interest”. Crucially, the Greens claim the deal will tighten ministerial discretion. The original reforms said the minister “must be satisfied” a decision is “not inconsistent with” the National Environmental Standards. This gave the environment minister of the day wide leeway to depart from the standards and approve projects. The Greens are claiming a major win here by changing the language from “not inconsistent with” these standards to “consistent with”. This isn’t semantics – it’s a stricter legal test. The amendments will also bring more land clearing under the environment assessment regime and allow the minister to declare some matters too important to be offset by paying into the new Restoration Contributions Fund. This could be a potentially important safeguard. Wins for the Liberals? In recent months, Watt has pitched these reforms as a win for the environment and for business, which would benefit from faster approvals. But businesses were wary of the nebulous concept of “unacceptable impacts”. It looks like Liberal Senator Jonathon Duniam’s proposed changes to the definition of “unacceptable impacts” have been supported. The definition of an “unacceptable impact” on a critically endangered species has been pared back to “seriously impairs […] viability”. This means projects can’t be knocked back if they are only likely to seriously impair viability. “Seriously impair” has now been redefined as “something if, compared to the action not being taken, the impact results in an impairment or alteration of the thing that is of a severe nature and extent”. These are terms requiring subjective interpretation, but “severe nature” may make it harder to reject projects than “seriously altered for the worse”. Will the new legislation stem the damage to nature? The bar for improvement is low. Australia’s current environment laws are riddled with administrative discretion. Many projects are never assessed, and 99% of projects assessed under these laws are given the green light. The revised bill contains some key elements proposed by the scathing 2020 Samuel Review, such as provision for National Environmental Standards, while the concessions won by the Greens reduce ministerial discretion. Samuel described today’s deal as a “great balance” between environment and business concerns. Much will be up in the air even after these laws pass. The government has only drafted two of the many environmental standards anticipated, one on matters of national environmental significance and one on environmental offsets. It remains to be seen whether these standards will improve decision-making, and they are also not yet finalised. Major questions around the interpretation of language in the new laws may need to be hashed out in future court proceedings. The Greens were unable to remove Labor’s new “pay to destroy” from the laws. This is a significant concern, as the controversial ability for developers to pay into a restoration fund will likely be seen as the easy route. This mechanism is already up and running in New South Wales, with poor outcomes. What now? These reforms are the end of a tortuous process – and the start of another, far bigger, job. To be successful, they will need to be coupled with far greater public investment and rigorous enforcement. The true test of these reforms will be whether we succeed in the ultimate act of conserving and recovering the wildlife and places Australians know and love. Justine Bell-James receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Great Barrier Reef Foundation, the Queensland Government, and the National Environmental Science Program. She is a Director of the National Environmental Law Association and a member of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists.Euan is a Councillor within the Biodiversity Council, a member of the Ecological Society of Australia and president of the Australian Mammal Society.Phillipa C. McCormack receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Natural Hazards Research Australia, the National Environmental Science Program, Green Adelaide, the North East NSW Forestry Hub and the ACT government. She is a member of the National Environmental Law Association and International Association of Wildland Fire and affiliated with the Wildlife Crime Research Hub.Yung En Chee receives/has received funding from the Australian Research Council. She also receives funding and research contracts from Melbourne Water through the Melbourne Waterway Research-Practice Partnership 2023-2028. Yung En is a member of the Society for Conservation Biology.

The rewriting of Australia’s nature laws come as a relief, yet I can’t help feel a sense of foreboding | Georgina Woods

The minister says quick approvals can happen while protecting the environment, but my experience tells me that haste brings unintended consequencesGet our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcastI got a text from a biodiversity advocate around midday on Thursday asking me: are you glad, or sad?I wasn’t sure how to reply. Continue reading...

I got a text from a biodiversity advocate around midday on Thursday asking me: are you glad, or sad?I wasn’t sure how to reply.The Australian parliament is amending the country’s environment laws. Thanks to negotiating by the Greens, the amended laws will not enable the fast-tracking of coal and gas mining, which the government had proposed. Decisions about coal and gas mines that harm water resources will be retained by the commonwealth and not given over wholly to state governments as the government had proposed. That is an enormous relief.And yet, I am filled with foreboding.The bill introduced into parliament only a few weeks ago proposed to take the country backwards in environmental protection. It sought to strip communities of participation in environmental decisions, hand decision-making about environmental harm to the states and territories and give the environment minister sweeping power to tailor environmental regulations for certain developments, companies or industries.The government made it clear from the outset that the convenience of business, the desire for “quick yesses” that could harm the natural environment, was its chief priority. It has been made clear that the government intends to grant fast-tracked approval to renewable energy developments and minerals mines. There is excited talk about “abundance” – which is code for sweeping forests, wetlands, woodlands and local communities out of the path of business, mining and development.The minister is adamant this can be done while protecting the environment, but my 25 years of experience with environmental regulation tell me that haste brings unintended consequences. It makes communities angry. It leads to losses of our beautiful natural heritage that are mourned for generations. It impoverishes us by eroding the natural ecosystems that actually create the “abundance” that makes our society.Sign up: AU Breaking News emailThere is no abundance without reciprocity and we will learn this, to our sorrow, in the years to come if we continue treating the natural world as a magic pudding that can be cut and cut and cut and will come again.Coal and gas mining will not be fast-tracked and for that I am very glad. But the government ruled out embedding any formal consideration of the impacts of greenhouse gas pollution, the effect of climate change on Australia’s natural heritage, into decision-making. Only a few months ago, Australia’s first national climate risk assessment itemised a devastating prognosis for Australia’s marine, freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems across the continent if global warming exceeds the limits set down in the Paris climate agreement. It spoke of ecosystems collapsing and whole species dying out. The only way to prevent that warming is to stop the pollution that comes from burning coal, gas and oil for energy, and quickly. Indeed, an International Court of Justice advisory opinion has affirmed that all countries have a legal obligation to prevent climate harm and protect the climate system. For Australia, that means preventing the pollution from our energy exports.The greenhouse gas emissions from Australia’s energy exports, and the impact that this pollution is having on Australians, is not going to go away because the minister refuses to think about it, or because the prime minister is too squeamish to talk about it. The consequences will plague our descendents for generations to come, long after this generation of politicians are gone, but there will be more immediate demands from communities suffering the effects of climate change that will become increasingly impossible to ignore.

EPA cements delay of Biden-era methane rule for oil and gas

The Trump administration on Wednesday cemented its delay of Biden-era regulations on planet-warming methane coming from the oil and gas industry. Earlier this year, the administration issued an “interim final rule” that pushed back compliance deadlines for the Biden-era climate rule by 18 months. On Wednesday, it announced a final rule that locks in the delay. The delays apply...

The Trump administration on Wednesday cemented its delay of Biden-era regulations on planet-warming methane coming from the oil and gas industry. Earlier this year, the administration issued an “interim final rule” that pushed back compliance deadlines for the Biden-era climate rule by 18 months. On Wednesday, it announced a final rule that locks in the delay. The delays apply to requirements to install certain technologies meant to reduce emissions. It also applies to timelines for states to create plans for cutting methane emissions from existing oil and gas.  Methane is a gas that is about 28 times as potent as carbon dioxide at heating the planet over a 100-year period. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin said that the administration was acting in order to protect U.S. energy production.  “The previous administration used oil and gas standards as a weapon to shut down development and manufacturing in the United States,” Zeldin said in a written statement.  “By finalizing compliance extensions, EPA is ensuring unrealistic regulations do not prevent America from unleashing energy dominance,” he added. However, environmental advocates say that the delay will result in more pollution. “The methane standards are already working to reduce pollution, protect people’s health, and prevent the needless waste of American energy. The rule released today means millions of Americans will be exposed to dangerous pollution for another year and a half, for no good reason,” Grace Smith, senior attorney at Environmental Defense Fund, said in a written statement.  Meanwhile, the delay comes as the Trump administration reconsiders the rule altogether, having put it on a hit list of regulations earlier this year. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Brazil Prosecutors Sue Agencies Over Haidar Shipwreck, Environmental Risk

By Ana ManoSAO PAULO (Reuters) -Brazilian federal prosecutors in Para state have filed a lawsuit to demand the removal of the hull and oily...

SAO PAULO (Reuters) -Brazilian federal prosecutors in Para state have filed a lawsuit to demand the removal of the hull and oily residues from the Haidar ship, which sank 10 years ago near Vila do Conde port, Brazil's biggest for live cattle shipments.In a statement on Wednesday, Para federal prosecutors recalled the Haidar wreck caused the death of 5,000 cattle and a spill of 700,000 liters of oily residues.A subsequent spill from the Haidar wreck was reported in 2018, prosecutors said, showing that remaining residues inside the hull represent "a constant threat."Some 215,000 liters of oil, diesel, fuel, and lubricant could still be inside the ship, prosecutors added, warning of potentially "catastrophic water pollution" if new spills occur.The sunken vessel still contains carcasses and skeletal remains of the cattle drowned in 2015, they said. Prosecutors are seeking at least 5 million reais ($936,873) in compensation, in addition to 91,400 reais for environmental damages related to the 2018 spill.Defendants include the federal infrastructure department DNIT, Para's environment agency SEMAS, the Para Port Authority CDP, and the companies that owned the ship.They did not immediately comment on the lawsuit.Para, Brazil's biggest live cattle-exporting state, shipped 370,000 head of cattle worth $344 million mainly to Egypt, Morocco, and Algeria in the year through July, according to trade data compiled by state authorities.Beefpacker Minerva owned the cattle ferried on the Haidar in 2015, but it is not a defendant, according to court filings.       (Reporting by Ana ManoEditing by Rod Nickel)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.

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.

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.