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.

The Mission to Save the World Through Regenerative Farming

News Feed
Wednesday, April 17, 2024

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

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

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Meet the champions of the 2024 Goldman Environmental Prize​

The Goldman Environmental Prize celebrates its 35th year by recognizing seven environmental leaders who have made significant impacts in their regions.Liz Kimbrough reports for Mongabay.In short:Seven environmental activists, including two Indigenous leaders from Africa, received the Goldman Environmental Prize for achievements in environmental conservation.Among the winners, efforts ranged from stopping seismic testing in South Africa to protecting forests in India and influencing clean transportation regulations in California.These activists have effectively combated threats like deforestation and pollution, promoting sustainable practices across various regions.Key quote: "There is no shortage of those who are doing the hard work, selflessly. These seven leaders refused to be complacent amidst adversity, or to be cowed by powerful corporations and governments." — John Goldman, president of the Goldman Environmental Foundation.Why this matters: The grassroots efforts of these activists not only protect local ecosystems but also inspire global policies and movements toward environmental justice and sustainability. Read more: “We should take care of what is precious to us."

The Goldman Environmental Prize celebrates its 35th year by recognizing seven environmental leaders who have made significant impacts in their regions.Liz Kimbrough reports for Mongabay.In short:Seven environmental activists, including two Indigenous leaders from Africa, received the Goldman Environmental Prize for achievements in environmental conservation.Among the winners, efforts ranged from stopping seismic testing in South Africa to protecting forests in India and influencing clean transportation regulations in California.These activists have effectively combated threats like deforestation and pollution, promoting sustainable practices across various regions.Key quote: "There is no shortage of those who are doing the hard work, selflessly. These seven leaders refused to be complacent amidst adversity, or to be cowed by powerful corporations and governments." — John Goldman, president of the Goldman Environmental Foundation.Why this matters: The grassroots efforts of these activists not only protect local ecosystems but also inspire global policies and movements toward environmental justice and sustainability. Read more: “We should take care of what is precious to us."

US military bases teem with PFAS. There’s still no firm plan to clean them up.

Excessive levels of PFAS have been detected at 80 percent of active and decommissioned military bases

In 2016, Tony Spaniola received a notice informing him that his family shouldn’t drink water drawn from the well at his lake home in Oscoda, Michigan. Over the course of several decades, the Air Force had showered thousands of gallons of firefighting foam onto the ground at Wurtsmith Air Force Base, which closed in 1993. Those chemicals eventually leached into the soil and began contaminating the groundwater. Alarmed, Spaniola began looking into the problem. “The more I looked, the worse it got,” he said. Two years ago,  his concern prompted him to co-found the Great Lakes PFAS Action network. The coalition of residents and activists is committed to making polluters, like the military and a factory making waterproof shoes, clean up the “forever chemicals” they’ve left behind. PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a class of nearly 15,000 fluorinated chemicals used since the 1950s to make clothing and food containers, among other things, oil- and water-repellent. They’re also used in firefighting foam. These chemicals do not break down over time, and have contaminated everything from drinking water to food. Research has linked them to cancer, heart and liver problems, developmental issues, and other ailments. The U.S. Department of Defense, or DOD, is among the nation’s biggest users of firefighting foam and says 80 percent of active and decommissioned bases require clean up. Some locations, like Wurtsmith, recorded concentrations over 3,000 times higher than what the agency previously considered safe. Today, the EPA considers it unsafe to be exposed to virtually any amount of PFOA and PFOS, two of the most harmful substances under the PFAS umbrella. Earlier this month, it implemented the nation’s first PFAS drinking water regulations, which included capping exposure to them at the lowest detectable limit. As of April 19, the agency also designated these two compounds “hazardous substances” under the federal Superfund law, making it easier to force polluters to shoulder the costs of cleaning them up.  Meeting these regulations means that almost all of the 715 military sites and surrounding communities under Defense Department investigation for contamination will likely require remediation. Long-standing cleanup efforts at more than 100 PFAS contaminated bases that are already designated Superfund sites, like Wurtsmith, reveal some of the challenges to come. “The heart of the issue is, how quickly are you going to clean it up, and what actions are you going to take in the interim to make sure people aren’t exposed?” said Spaniola.  A sign warning hunters not to eat deer because of high amounts of toxic PFAS chemicals in their meat, in Oscoda, Michigan. Drew YoungeDyke, National Wildlife Federation via AP In a statement to Grist, the DOD says its plan is to follow a federal clean up law called the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, or CERCLA, to investigate contamination and determine near- and long-term clean up actions based on risk. But many advocates, including Spaniola, say the process is too slow and that short-term fixes have been insufficient.  The problem started decades ago. In the 1960s, the Defense Department worked with 3M, one of the largest manufacturers of PFAS chemicals, to develop a foam called AFFF that can extinguish high-temperature fires. The PFAS acts as a surfactant, helping the material spread more quickly. By the 1970s, every military base, Navy ship, civilian airport, and fire station regularly used AFFF.  In the decades that followed, millions of gallons flowed into the environment. According to the nonprofit Environmental Working Group, or EWG, 710 military sites throughout the country and its territories have known or suspected PFAS contamination. Internal studies and memos show that not long after 3M and the US Navy patented the foam in 1966, 3M learned that its PFAS products could harm animal test subjects and accumulated in the body.  In a 2022 Senate committee hearing, residents from Oscoda testified about the health impacts, such as tumors and miscarriages, from the PFAS contamination at Wurtsmith. In 2023, Michigan reached a settlement after suing numerous manufacturers, including 3M and Dupont. Today, thousands of victims across the country are suing the chemical’s manufacturers. While some organizations and communities have tried to hold the military financially responsible for this pollution — farmers in several states recently filed suits in the U.S. District Court in South Carolina to do just that — the DOD says it’s not legally liable. Congressional pressure on the Pentagon to clean these sites has been growing. In 2020, National Defense Authorization Acts required it to phase out PFAS-laden firefighting foam by October, 2023. Since passing that law, Congress has also ordered the department to publish the findings of drinking and groundwater tests on and around bases.Results showed nearly 50 sites with extremely high levels of contamination, and hundreds more with levels above what was then the EPA’s health advisory. Following further congressional pressure, the military announced plans to implement interim clean-up measures at three dozen locations, including a water filtering system in Oscoda.According to a report by the Environmental Working Group, it took an average of nearly three years for the Department of Defense to complete testing at these high-contamination sites. It took just as long to draft stopgap cleanup plans. Today, 14 years after PFAS contamination was discovered at Wurtsmith, the first site to be tested, no site has left the “investigation” phase, and there has yet to be a comprehensive plan to begin permanent remediation on any base. The Department of Defense says any site found to have PFAS contamination exceeding the Environmental Protection Agency’s previous guideline of 70 parts per trillion will receive immediate remediation, such as bottled waters and filters on faucets. When a site is found to be contaminated, the EPA says, the department has 72 hours to provide residents with alternate sources of water. Water tower near the former Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Willow Grove, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, which is in the DOD’s list of the 39 most contaminated bases. Bastiaan Slabbers/NurPhoto via Getty Images After six years spent working with various clean up initiatives, Spaniola says waiting for the military to take action has taken a toll on the people of Oscoda. “The community had a really good relationship with the military,” he said. “I’ve watched that change from a very trusting relationship to a terrible one.”  Dozens of states have mandated additional requirements to treat PFAS in municipal water systems, but such efforts often overlook private well owners. That’s leaving thousands of people at risk, given that in Michigan, where some 1.5 million people drink water from contaminated sources, 25 percent of residents rely on private wells.   Nationwide, the Environmental Working Group found unsafe water in wells near 63 military bases in 29 states. While the DOD has tested private wells, it has not published the total number of wells tested or identified which of them need to be cleaned up.  “For those who are on well water, it’s a real problem until there’s a bit of recognition for some sort of responsibility for the contamination,” said Daniel Jones, associate director of the Michigan State University Center for PFAS Research. He is advising cleanup efforts near Grayling, Michigan. “It sort of comes down to who has pockets deep enough to pay for the things that need to be done.” The EPA’s recent decision to designate PFOA and PFOS “hazardous substances” under the federal Superfund law is unlikely to provide quick financial assistance to communities, even though the agency has made $9 billion available for private well owners and small public water systems to address contamination. Whether that support reaches private well owners is up to individual states, which can work with regional EPA offices to draft project plans under the  before applying for grants to secure funding. The agency has established a five-year window for water systems to test for PFAS and install filtering equipment before compliance with the newly tightened levels will be enforced. While EPA says the new PFOA and PFOS regulations do not immediately trigger an investigation or qualify them as Superfund sites on the National Priorities List, decisions for each site will be on a case-by-case basis. “It is a tremendous win for public health, it is tremendously important and cannot cannot come soon enough, particularly for military communities who have been exposed for decades,” said Melanie Benesh, vice president of governmental affairs at the Environmental Working Group. Benesh hopes that the new rules help push the Defense Department to move more quickly. This story was originally published by Grist with the headline US military bases teem with PFAS. There’s still no firm plan to clean them up. on Apr 29, 2024.

Activist wins Goldman prize for effort to clean up California trucking and railway sectors

Andrea Vidaurre helped persuade regulators to adopt rules that will improve air quality for millions in one of US’s smoggiest areasA grassroots organizer from one of the US’s smoggiest communities has been awarded the prestigious Goldman prize for environmental activists, after leading a successful campaign to clean-up California’s trucking and railway sectors.Andrea Vidaurre from Inland Empire, a sprawling metropolitan region in southern California, helped persuade state regulators to adopt two historic transport regulations that will improve local air quality for millions of people – and accelerate the country’s transition away from greenhouse gas spewing vehicles. Continue reading...

A grassroots organizer from one of the US’s smoggiest communities has been awarded the prestigious Goldman prize for environmental activists, after leading a successful campaign to clean-up California’s trucking and railway sectors.Andrea Vidaurre from Inland Empire, a sprawling metropolitan region in southern California, helped persuade state regulators to adopt two historic transport regulations that will improve local air quality for millions of people – and accelerate the country’s transition away from greenhouse gas spewing vehicles.Vidaurre, 29, was compelled to act after the once picturesque region, where she was born and raised, was transformed into an inland port and trucking hub connecting the busiest shipping container ports in the country – Long Beach and San Pedro (Los Angeles) – with thousands of sprawling warehouses that operate 24/7. Amazon, which owns many buildings in the area, is currently constructing the world’s largest warehouse – a five-story 4.1m sq ft facility.“They blame it on consumerism, because we’re shopping online but that’s not the full story. This is very profit-driven, and it’s targeted in communities of color,” said Vidaurre, co-founder of the People’s Collective for Environmental Justice.The air quality for the Island Empire’s disproportionately Latino population is among the worst in the US, thanks to more than half a million diesel trucks – plus freight trains and planes – passing through every single day. Public health experts have dubbed the area a “diesel death zone” due to elevated cancer, asthma and premature death rates.The In-Use Locomotive Rule and the California Advanced Clean Fleets Rule, adopted by the California Air Resource Board (Carb) in 2023, include the country’s first emission rule for trains and a path to 100% zero emissions for freight truck sales by 2036. The regulations could play a key role in cleaning up the polluting transportation sector, which is the largest contributor to US greenhouse gas emissions.The groundbreaking rules were adopted after years of campaigning and policy work by Vidaurre – and a small army of community-based organizers – which included bringing regulators and state lawmakers to Inland Empire for toxic tours, so that officials experienced firsthand the relentless noise and dirty air.“It was super impactful that the decision-makers came to the communities to see how close warehouses are to schools, to feel the ground moving from the trains, and see the pile of asthma medications some kids take. We cannot keep making regulations based on the status quo on what the industry lobbyists say is economically viable, we need solutions that address the problems,” said Vidaurre.Big polluting industries often claim that tighter environmental regulations will cost jobs and damage the economy. Vidaurre, whose family has long worked at warehouses and freight airports – unloading trucks, moving packages, and loading planes – tackled this industry myth head-on by mobilizing trucking and warehouse labor unions and ensuring that the new regulations address workers’ concerns. As a result, the onus for transitioning from diesel to electric trucks will be on companies like Amazon and FedEx whose products are being moved – not the truckers.“Historically, environmental policies have not always included workers and they have been screwed. It doesn’t have to be like that. We live and work in these communities, and environmental justice is about looking out for both.”Vidaurre is the 2024 North American winner of the Goldman prize – which honors the leadership of grassroots environmentalists from the world’s six inhabited continental regions. To date, the prize has recognized 226 winners from 95 countries, some of whom have gone on to become heads of state and Nobel Prize laureates.skip past newsletter promotionOur US morning briefing breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what’s happening and why it mattersPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionThis year’s other winners are: Indigenous activists Nonhle Mbuthuma and Sinegugu Zukulu, who halted destructive seismic testing for oil and gas off South Africa’s Eastern Cape; Alok Shukla, who led a campaign in India that saved 445,000 acres of biodiversity-rich forests from coal mining; Teresa Vicente, who led a grassroots campaign to save Europe’s largest saltwater lagoon from collapse; Marcel Gomes, whose international campaign linking beef from the world’s largest meatpacking company to illegal deforestation in Brazil prompted six major supermarket chains to stop stocking JBS products; and Murrawah Maroochy Johnson, whose victory against a proposed coal mine in Queensland set a legal precedent for First Nations people in Australia.“These seven leaders refused to be complacent amidst adversity, or to be cowed by powerful corporations and governments. Alone, their achievements across the world are impressive. Together, they are a collective force – and a growing global movement – that is breathtaking and full of hope,” said John Goldman, president of the Goldman Environmental Foundation.The struggle for clean freight is far from over – even in California. The new regulations are facing legal challenges and cannot be implemented until the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) grants a waiver. But Carb, the new rule, is nudging the trucking industry to begin phase-in of the new zero emissions mandates, and eight other states have so far indicated that they will adopt similar trucking rules approved by the EPA.Vidaurre said: “We need to make a better system for moving goods that will protect our air, communities and the planet from freight. There’s no more time to waste.”

First Nations woman one of seven global winners of prestigious Goldman prize for environmental activism

Murrawah Johnson recognised for role in landmark legal case to block coalmine backed by Clive PalmerFollow our Australia news live blog for latest updatesGet our morning and afternoon news emails, free app or daily news podcastFor Murrawah Johnson, the impacts of the climate crisis and the destruction of land to mine the fossil fuels that drive it are more than simple questions of atmospheric physics or environmental harm.“What colonisation hasn’t already done, climate change will do in terms of finalising the assimilation process for First Nations people,” the 29-year-old Wirdi woman from Queensland says.Sign up for Guardian Australia’s free morning and afternoon email newsletters for your daily news roundup Continue reading...

For Murrawah Johnson, the impacts of the climate crisis and the destruction of land to mine the fossil fuels that drive it are more than simple questions of atmospheric physics or environmental harm.“What colonisation hasn’t already done, climate change will do in terms of finalising the assimilation process for First Nations people,” the 29-year-old Wirdi woman from Queensland says.“[It is] totally destroying our ability to maintain a cultural identity, cultural existence and to be able to pass that on.”Johnson is one of seven global winners of the prestigious Goldman prize for environmental activism – described as the Nobel for the environment movement - announced at a ceremony in San Francisco.The Waratah coalmine would have destroyed the nearly 20,000-acre Bimblebox Nature Refuge. Photograph: Malcolm PatersonShe’s honoured, she says, to be in the company of campaigners who waged many of Australia’s most influential environmental battles, from blocking sandmining on K’gari to fighting uranium mining in Kakadu and saving Tasmania’s Franklin River from damming – a campaign that led to the formation of the Australian Greens.Johnson is recognised for her role as a co-director of Youth Verdict – a group that won a landmark legal case in Queensland to block a major coalmine backed by the mining magnate and politician Clive Palmer.Palmer’s Waratah Coal planned to dig up a nature refuge to mine and sell about 40m tonnes of coal a year from the Galilee basin.Youth Verdict secured the first “on country” hearing in Queensland’s land court to hear evidence from Indigenous people.But the case was also the first to test the state’s new Human Rights Act, successfully arguing that the emissions from burning the coal would limit the rights of First Nations people.Waratah Coal withdrew its appeal last February and, two months later, the Queensland government blocked the mine.But Johnson, a mother of one with a second child on the way, had already been campaigning for the rights of her people against the climate crisis and fossil fuels for almost a decade.Johnson is a mother of one with another child on the way. Photograph: Goldman environmental prizeJohnson was a youth spokesperson for the Wangan and Jagalingou family council that had fought unsuccessfully against the development of one of Australia’s most controversial resource projects, Adani’s Carmichael coalmine.She remembers a community meeting in front of Adani’s lawyers and hundreds of Indigenous people in 2014 when she was asked to speak to represent young people after those gathered were handed an “information package” about the project.Flowers in the Bimblebox Nature Refuge. Photograph: Malcolm Paterson“I was 19 at the time and I said, ‘Where’s the environmental impact statement?’ – is there anything about the environmental impacts,” she says.skip past newsletter promotionOur Australian morning briefing breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what’s happening and why it mattersPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotion“You want us to make a decision to essentially give our consent to this project but you’re withholding the facts of the impacts to our country.”Johnson has always been surrounded by strong Indigenous advocates in her family.The fight to avert the climate crisis, she says, is a clear continuation of Indigenous Australians’ battle for recognition and the ownership of their land and retention of their culture, stories and totems.“This is really about course-correcting the injustice that’s been done to us starting from the declaration of terra nullius and understanding that there’s still a way to be a productive and economically viable society that doesn’t depend on destroying country, dispossessing people of their land and their culture – homogenising people and putting the rest of the world at threat.”As well as the direct physical impacts of resources projects – such as mines damaging sacred sites or sea level rise inundating burial grounds – Johnson says the effects of climate change on the fabric of Indigenous beliefs can be profound.Birds at home in the nature refuge. Photograph: Malcolm PatersonJohnson is Wirdi woman from the Birri Gubba nation and her totem animal is the goanna.“Other groups have other totems that are more vulnerable to climate change,” she says.“We’ve already taken a huge loss to biodiversity due to colonialism, through the pastoral industry especially. Hopefully the goanna can be adaptive, but that does not necessarily apply to [other totems like] crocodiles or turtles.“What happens when a whole species is disappeared from climate change? How do our people then identify? Because it is how they relate to everyone around them. How do you find your place or navigate the world.“When I say our cultural survival is on the line, that’s what I’m talking about.”Wild flowers bloom. Photograph: Malcolm PatersonFighting against the might and influence of the fossil fuel industry is hard enough. Johnson has taken this on while also carrying the fight of First Nations people already dispossessed of their land, and the legacy of trauma that comes with it.She wants Youth Verdict to become a vehicle for First Nations people to assert their rights and push for acknowledgment whether that is in legal courts, or in the courts of public opinion.“It can be a lonely place and you find yourself asking what’s it all for. But I have to remind myself that sometimes the work needs to be done … because it’s just the right thing to do.”

Coral reef 100 miles off the Texas Gulf Coast is doing better than others facing global coral bleaching event

A coral reef 100 miles off the Texas Gulf Coast is doing better than others that are facing the 4th global coral bleaching event. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), coral bleaching happens when corals are stressed by changes in conditions like temperature, light, or nutrients. Bleached coral is more susceptible to […]

Flower Garden Banks National Marine SanctuaryA healthy coral community in the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary, located off the coast of Galveston.A coral reef 100 miles off the Texas Gulf Coast is doing better than others that are facing the 4th global coral bleaching event. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), coral bleaching happens when corals are stressed by changes in conditions like temperature, light, or nutrients. Bleached coral is more susceptible to disease. The depth of the Flower Garden Banks Marine Sanctuary in the Gulf of Mexico has helped the reef avoid the extreme bleaching present in other areas in the nation. The reef is almost sixty feet deep in the shallowest parts of the reef. By comparison, reefs like the Florida Keys can be as shallow as 5 feet in some areas. Michelle Johnston is the Sanctuary Superintendent for the Flower Garden Banks. She said shallow reefs have a harder time with rising ocean temperatures. “That’s not to say that we don’t get bleaching,” she said. “We do, and we had a moderate amount of bleaching last summer, but nowhere near the extent of what was seen in the Florida Keys.” Coral bleaching was first observed in the 1980s. The NOAA has recorded and monitored significant damage to coral reefs since 2000 through the Coral Reef Watch, who then records global coral bleaching events. A coral bleaching event from 2014 to 2017 is now considered the longest, most widespread and damaging event on record. Johnston said some researchers are looking into light therapy and ways to artificially cool down water near the reefs, like bringing in a hose to manually pump cooler water near reefs. “Some ideas that maybe ten years ago seemed crazy don’t seem so crazy anymore,” she said. Aquariums like Moody Gardens are working to help coral reefs keep up with climate change. Johnston said some corals are more resistant to heat than others, and the coral lab at Moody Gardens has a small sample size of corals to study that. According to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation, El Niño can increase the risk of coral bleaching. El Niño usually brings warmer, drier summers. Hurricanes on the other hand can sometimes bring benefits to reefs. Two thirds of the U.S., all of Eastern Mexico, and a small part of Canada’s watershed flows into the Gulf of Mexico. The Mississippi River Basin alone accounts for the largest portion, according to the NOAA. Kelly Drinnen, the Acting Education Coordinator for the Flower Garden Banks, said this can bring muddy water to the gulf. “We have seen very large storms like hurricanes that hit the Texas-Louisiana coastlines that muddy water that contains who knows what,” she said. “… even if it’s not sediments in the waters and possible pollutants, the freshwater influx changes things that are offshore every once in a while.” However, Drinnen said some storms like Hurricane Rita have actually prevented bleaching events. Michelle Johnston said smaller tropical storms can serve as a way for the ocean to clean itself. “I was told once that hurricanes are kind of like nature’s way of air conditioning, you know, it churns stuff up and cools it down,” she said. The NOAA recommends traditional environmental efforts like reducing water and electricity usage, recycling, and disposing of trash responsibly to support aquatic ecosystems. Michelle Johnston said activism, going to scuba events, and visiting local aquariums can also go a long way. “This place really is a national treasure. It is a safe haven for wild corals,” she said. “… The fact that we have such a healthy ecosystem, and a place where corals are still thriving, and fish communities are thriving, is something that’s rare in this day and age.”

Suggested Viewing

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.