Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

GoGreenNation News

Learn more about the issues presented in our films
Show Filters

A Michigan town hopes to stop a data center with a 2026 ballot initiative

Local officials see millions of dollars in tax revenue, but more than 950 residents who signed ballot petitions fear endless noise, pollution and higher electric rates.

Early this year, Augusta Charter Township resident Travis Matts had seen a few headlines about the problems data centers caused in towns across the country. He thought the impacts on water, air and utility bills sounded awful, but it also seemed like a far-away issue. Until it suddenly hit home in May.  That is when Matts learned, through his group of volunteers that cleans up area litter, that a data center was proposed for an 822-acre property largely in Augusta Township, a small farming community southeast of Ann Arbor. Township leadership fully supported it.  Matts and others responded by quickly forming a new residents group in opposition, and began collecting ballot initiative signatures to put a rezoning for the data center in front of voters. The debate consumed local politics and bitterly divided some residents in this town of about 8,000 people, leading to accusations of harassment and threats.  “It’s sad that we residents have to fight as hard as we do to keep these facilities out of our backyards, but if we don’t then who will?” he asked. “We’re taking it into our own hands.”  By August, the group, Protect Augusta Charter Township (PACT), had collected enough signatures for a referendum, and PACT is confident residents will vote the project down, Matts added. An aerial view of Google’s New Albany data center campus in Central Ohio. Courtesy of Google The grassroots effort is part of a growing number of municipal fights that are playing out in towns throughout Michigan—and across the U.S.—that could derail data center plans. The centers are opposed by people from across the political spectrum, and the controversy here is unfolding as neighboring Saline Township rejected a similar data center plan in September.  In Augusta Township, the proposal has pitted nearly 1,000 residents who signed the ballot initiative against the township Board of Trustees, which in July unanimously approved the rezoning, and the developer behind the proposal, New York City-based real estate firm Thor Equities. Thor builds data centers but has not announced a client, though a planning report noted tech companies like Google and Microsoft use the type of facility that is proposed here. The centers typically house infrastructure for artificial intelligence and other computing uses.  Few details on how the center would look are yet available, but it would include at least five large buildings on what is currently farmland and wetlands, according to plans. The center may consume 1 million gallons of water daily, local news outlet MLive reported, and would include large generators. The Board of Trustees and supporters point to potential benefits, including increased tax revenue for the financially struggling township, and water and sewer infrastructure improvements.  “It would just be so huge for us,” said Augusta Township Clerk Kim Gonczy. The level of tax revenue is still unclear, she said, but added it is likely “millions of dollars.”  “It could make such a big difference for the township,” she added. The project’s opponents questioned the economic impact. They fear an increase in noise and light pollution, and that the massive facility would destroy Augusta’s rural character while pushing up utility bills and causing brownouts. PACT’s effort is about preserving the “sense of place,” said Matts, whose family has lived in Augusta for 100 years.  “With this data center plan they’re basically saying, ‘We know that, but business is more important,’” Matts said. “Landscape and preserving the identity of a place does not register on their needs list.” Residents needed to collect 561 signatures to get the issue on the ballot, and they turned in 957 gathered during an approximately two-week period in August. Township officials must certify the signatures, then develop language for the ballot that will be voted on during a special election in May 2026 at the earliest. Matts estimated PACT spoke with 1,200 to 1,400 residents, and a strong majority signed the petition. As data centers’ financial and environmental tolls have become clearer, the public is broadly growing more concerned. In many communities, their massive electricity and water consumption has increased residential utility bills. In Michigan and elsewhere, they have already required more fossil fuel plants to be built or stay open, and threaten to derail the transition to clean energy. Meanwhile, they can be a source of light, noise, water and air pollution.  The local battles playing out across the state are residents’ best line of defense, said Tim Minotas, legislative coordinator for the Sierra Club of Michigan. “This is where people live and raise their family so in the absence of state or federal protections, it’s really the responsibility of our local communities to take a stand to protect themselves,” Minotas said.  “That’s harassment” An incident detailed in a previous news report and confirmed by four residents to Inside Climate News described how a township official in August allegedly called police on PACT members. PACT had set up a canopy and table on the side of the road to collect signatures for the ballot initiative near the township hall. The responding officer allegedly found the campaigners had done nothing wrong, but asked them to move the table back from the road. PACT questioned the township’s intent.  “Calling the cops, that’s harassment,” resident Deborah Fuqua-Frey, who is opposed to the project, said during a public comment session after the incident.  Gonczy did not respond to Inside Climate News questions about the incident. In a late-August statement to the news outlet Planet Detroit, Gonczy said the campaigners were set up too close to a dangerous intersection.  Read Next Data centers gobble Earth’s resources. What if we took them to space instead? Sophie Hurwitz Meanwhile, residents said they have received anonymous handwritten notes in their mailboxes that they perceived as threats. Video shows the township supervisor, Todd Waller, would not allow residents to talk about the data center during public comment at board meetings. Some residents questioned the ethics of Waller’s rule, and said it was part of a larger pattern of officials trying to silence the project’s critics. Waller did not respond to requests for comment.  The local issues came after a battle in the state legislature in which progressive legislators sought to add consumer and environmental protections to incentives for data centers. Those were not included in the bills that passed, and may have helped alleviate some of the problems now being dealt with at the local level, said Denise Keele, director of the nonprofit Michigan Climate Action Network.  “It’s one thing if there is NIMBY-ism, and people saying ‘I don’t want this in my community,’ but with data centers the fears are real,” Keele said. “The centers suck up energy and more importantly they will raise our energy rates.”  Merits and drawbacks Township officials have downplayed PACT’s litany of issues with the project. Responding to concerns about light pollution, Gonczy said the property’s lights will be pointed toward the ground, so they won’t flood the surrounding region. She also told Inside Climate News that officials traveled to Toledo to visit a data center, used a noise meter to measure the decibels, and found the level would not violate Augusta Township ordinances.  Moreover, the project would be built in the township’s southwest corner, far away from most residents, Gonczy said. She added that she has not seen any evidence that it would decrease grid reliability or increase bills.  “I don’t understand all of that, and I don’t know where it’s coming from,” Gonczy told Inside Climate News.  The project’s opponents see it differently. They argue that the financial benefit is not worth the cost, and still suspect the lights will be a problem.  Read Next A coal-fired plant in Michigan was supposed to close. But Trump forced it to keep running at $1M a day. Oliver Milman, The Guardian “It won’t be dark at night because there are going to be acres and acres of lights,” said one township resident who declined to use her name for fear of retribution. “It’s no longer your dark cornfield because there’s a glow that never goes away.” The project’s opponents also questioned the accuracy of the sound meter readings, and said those do not take into account the effects of a steady din. Data centers include generators that frequently run on diesel fuel, and those are used monthly as routine maintenance to ensure they work, which could contribute to air and noise pollution.  More important, Matts said, is the loss of the rural character. State leaders didn’t consider these issues, nor has Augusta Township’s Board of Trustees, Matts said, which he called “frustrating.”  “People have lived here for a long time and we understand that things come and go and there’s change and development, but something of this scale and magnitude—1,000 industrial acres—is asinine in a community like this,” Matts said. This story was originally published by Grist with the headline A Michigan town hopes to stop a data center with a 2026 ballot initiative on Oct 14, 2025.

Rachel Reeves to confirm changes to ‘outdated’ planning system

Changes intended to reduce ‘burdensome bureaucracy’ and make it easier to build windfarms, reservoirs and housingMinisters are making it easier to build new windfarms, reservoirs and large housing developments as part of a series of changes to the government’s planning and infrastructure bill designed to bolster the confidence of developers.The changes – which were first revealed by the Guardian – will be confirmed on Tuesday by the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, as part of a pre-budget push to underline the government’s commitment to economic growth. Continue reading...

Ministers are making it easier to build new windfarms, reservoirs and large housing developments as part of a series of changes to the government’s planning and infrastructure bill designed to bolster the confidence of developers.The changes – which were first revealed by the Guardian – will be confirmed on Tuesday by the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, as part of a pre-budget push to underline the government’s commitment to economic growth.They include reducing the role of Natural England in helping decide on relatively minor applications and freeing up developers to build turbines near seismic sensors in southern Scotland.Officials say the amendments to the bill were required in part because the government damaged investor confidence by watering down the bill earlier in the summer.Reeves is hoping the bill will pass the Lords in time to be factored into the growth forecasts by the Office for Budget Responsibility, which could give her around £3bn extra breathing room against her own debt rules.Reeves said in a statement: “The outdated planning system has been gummed up by burdensome bureaucracy and held to ransom by blockers for too long.“Our pro-growth planning bill shows we are serious about cutting red tape to get Britain building again, backing the builders not the blockers to speed up projects and show investors that we are a country that gets spades in the ground and our economy growing.”Steve Reed, the housing secretary, said: “Britain’s potential has been shackled by governments unwilling to overhaul the stubborn planning system that has erected barriers to building at every turn. It is simply not true that nature has to lose for economic growth to succeed.”Reeves and Reed have agreed a number of amendments to the planning bill, which is due back in the Lords on 20 October.One will allow ministers to stop councils refusing planning permission if they are considering “calling in” the application to be decided at a national level. Recent examples of planning applications which have been called in include controversial plans to build a large new Chinese embassy near Tower Bridge.Another is specifically aimed at allowing developers to build wind turbines near the Eskdalemuir seismic array, which monitors nuclear test activity around the world. The MoD had raised concerns its equipment could be undermined by nearby turbines.A third will aim to limit when Natural England, the environmental regulator, should be involved in planning decisions.Reeves is keen to go further in freeing up the planning system, including with a nature bill later in the parliament, which will mean the UK abandoning EU rules on protected species and drawing up its own instead.But ministers and officials cannot agree on the need for a separate second planning bill. Some in government want to legislate again to make it easier to build large infrastructure projects such as a third runway at Heathrow, but others think such a bill would be a politically damaging and unnecessary distraction.

Nations Meet to Consider Regulations to Drive a Green Transition in Shipping

Maritime nations are meeting in London to discuss regulations that could shift the shipping industry away from fossil fuels

The world’s largest maritime nations are gathering in London on Tuesday to consider adopting regulations that would move the shipping industry away from fossil fuels to slash emissions.If the deal is adopted, this will be the first time a global fee is imposed on planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions. Most ships today run on heavy fuel oil that releases carbon dioxide and other pollutants as it’s burned. That would be a major win for the climate, public health, the ocean and marine life, said Delaine McCullough at the Ocean Conservancy. For too long, ships have run on crude, dirty oil, she said.“This agreement provides a lesson for the world that legally-binding climate action is possible," McCullough, shipping program director for the nonprofit environmental advocacy group, said. Shipping emissions have grown over the last decade to about 3% of the global total as trade has grown and vessels use immense amounts of fossil fuels to transport cargo over long distances. The regulations would set a pricing system for gas emissions The regulations, or “Net-zero Framework,” sets a marine fuel standard that decreases, over time, the amount of greenhouse gas emissions allowed from using shipping fuels. The regulations also establish a pricing system that would impose fees for every ton of greenhouse gases emitted by ships above allowable limits, in what is effectively the first global tax on greenhouse gas emissions.There's a base-level of compliance for the allowable greenhouse gas intensity of fuels. There's a more stringent direct compliance target that requires further reduction in the greenhouse gas intensity.If ships sail on fuels with lower emissions than what's required under the direct compliance target, they earn “surplus units," effectively credits. Ships with the highest emissions would have to buy those credits from other ships under the pricing system, or from the IMO at $380 per ton of carbon dioxide equivalent to reach the base level of compliance. In addition, there's a penalty of $100 per ton of carbon dioxide equivalent to reach direct compliance. Ships that meet the base target but not the direct compliance one must pay the $100 per ton penalty, too. Ships whose greenhouse gas intensity is below a certain threshold will receive rewards for their performance.The fees could generate $11 billion to $13 billion in revenue annually. That would go into an IMO fund to invest in fuels and technologies needed to transition to green shipping, reward low-emission ships and support developing countries so they aren’t left behind with dirty fuels and old ships. Looking for alternative fuels Ships could lower their emissions by using alternative fuels, running on electricity or using onboard carbon capture technologies. Wind propulsion and other energy efficiency advancements can also help reduce fuel consumption and emissions as part of an energy transition. Large ships last about 25 years, so the industry would need to make changes and investments now to reach net-zero around 2050.If adopted, the regulations will enter into force in 2027. Large oceangoing ships over 5,000 gross tonnage, which emit 85% of the total carbon emissions from international shipping, would have to pay penalties for their emissions starting in 2028, according to the IMO. The International Chamber of Shipping, which represents over 80% of the world’s merchant fleet, is advocating for adoption. Concerns over biofuels produced from food crops Heavy fuel oil, liquefied natural gas and biodiesel will be dominant for most of the 2030s and 2040s, unless the IMO further incentivizes green alternatives, according to modeling from Transport and Environment, a Brussels-based environmental nongovernmental organization. The way the rules are designed essentially make biofuels the cheapest fuel to use to comply, but biofuels require huge amounts of crops, pushing out less profitable food production, often leading to additional land clearance and deforestation, said Faig Abbasov, shipping director at T&E. They are urging the IMO to promote scalable green alternatives, not recklessly promote biofuels produced from food crops, Abbasov said. As it stands now, the deal before the IMO won't deliver net-zero emissions by 2050, he added.Green ammonia will get to a price that it’s appealing to ship owners in the late 2040s — quite late in the transition, according to the modeling. The NGO also sees green methanol playing an important role in the long-term transition. The vote at the London meeting The IMO aims for consensus in decision-making but it's likely nations will vote on adopting the regulations. At the April meeting, a vote was called to approve the contents of the regulations. The United States was notably absent in April, but plans to participate in this meeting. Teresa Bui at Pacific Environment said she's optimistic “global momentum is on our side” and a majority of countries will support adoption. Bui is senior climate campaign director for the environmental nonprofit, which has consultative, or non-voting, status at the IMO. If it fails, shipping’s decarbonization will be further delayed.“It's difficult to know for sure what the precise consequences will be, but failure this week will certainly lead to delay, which means ships will emit more greenhouse gases than they would have done and for longer, continuing their outsized contribution to the climate crisis,” said John Maggs, of the Clean Shipping Coalition, who is at the London meeting. The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Oct. 2025

‘Dismal’ health of world’s forests is threat to humanity, report warns

Financial institutions pouring money into land clearance and undermining efforts to stop destruction, says Climate FocusGlobal forest health has plunged to “dismal” levels and threatens the wellbeing of humanity, warns a damning report that highlights how financial systems are pouring money into land clearance and undermining efforts to reduce destruction.Since 2021 when world leaders and corporate executives promised to halt deforestation, the new study found that forest loss has increased, driven by subsidies for livestock, monocrops, logging and other extractive industries. Continue reading...

Global forest health has plunged to “dismal” levels and threatens the wellbeing of humanity, warns a damning report that highlights how financial systems are pouring money into land clearance and undermining efforts to reduce destruction.Since 2021 when world leaders and corporate executives promised to halt deforestation, the new study found that forest loss has increased, driven by subsidies for livestock, monocrops, logging and other extractive industries.Last year, 8.1m hectares (20m acres) of forest – an area roughly half the size of England – were burned, pulled or cut down, which was higher than the loss at the time of Cop26 in Glasgow, when the target of zero deforestation by 2030 was signed.The world is now 63% off track to reach that goal, according to the latest Forest Declaration Assessment, which is compiled each year by a coalition of civil society and research organisations.“Every year, the gap between commitments and reality grows wider, with devastating impacts on people, the climate and our economies,” said the lead author, Erin Matson of Climate Focus. “Forests are non-negotiable infrastructure for a livable planet. Continued failure to protect them puts our collective prosperity at risk.“We already know what works to stop forest loss, but countries, companies, and investors are only scratching the surface. And even those initial efforts are facing strong pushback from the standard bearers of an economic system built on forest destruction.”Behind the grim trend is a grotesque imbalance between the finances devoted to extraction and conservation. Agricultural industries, which have been responsible for 85% of forest loss over the past decade, have received average annual subsidies worth $409bn (£307bn). This is almost 70 times more than the $5.9bn of international public finance provided each year for forest protection and restoration.“Efforts to protect forests don’t stand a chance as long as our economic system keeps rewarding quick profits from forest destruction,” said Franziska Haupt, a partner at Climate Focus. “To truly tackle deforestation, leaders must work collectively to implement bold, binding reforms that will transform the system that still generously rewards forest loss.”A growing cause of alarm is the spread of fire, which hit staggeringly high levels in the Amazon last year after record droughts turned swathes of the normally moist tropical rainforest into a tinderbox. Many blazes are started deliberately to clear land and spread out of control.The carbon dioxide released by the burning Amazon last year was seven times higher than the average over the previous two years and more than the total greenhouse gas emissions of Germany. The authors of the report said the fires were pushing the forest closer to a point of no return.Private financial institutions are further tipping the balance. A separate report released by Global Witness found that banks have made $26bn from financing deforesting companies since the Paris agreement was signed in 2015 – averaging around $7m every day.US banks, led by Vanguard, JPMorgan Chase and BlackRock, earned the most globally, making $5.4bn, according to the watchdog group, based on data from the Dutch research consultancy Profundo.skip past newsletter promotionThe planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essentialPrivacy 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 promotionGreenpeace activists protest at the opening ceremony of the pre-Cop30 meeting in Brasília. Photograph: Eraldo Peres/APThis report found EU banks, topped by BNP Paribas and Rabobank, earned $3.5bn, while British banks made $1.2bn, with HSBC, Aberdeen Group and Schroders gaining the highest returns. Chinese financial institutions also secured $1.2bn, despite the country’s green finance policy supposedly restricting lending for companies with environmental or social governance concerns.“We are witnessing major banks bankroll a fire sale of the world’s rainforests,” said Global Witness forests lead Alexandria Reid. “And they’re reaping obscene profits from the ashes.“As long as tearing down forests remains more profitable than protecting them, the world will not meet its 2030 goal to halt deforestation, with catastrophic consequences for the climate. If world leaders want to change this, they must act now to shut down the profits fuelling this crisis.”Hopes for change are focused on next month’s Cop30 in Belém, the first climate summit to be held in the Amazon. The host, Brazil, has shown in the past that it can dramatically slow the speed of deforestation by stricter enforcement of the law. At Cop30, it will also be proposing a new conservation funding mechanism, the Tropical Forests Forever Facility, which aims to raise $125bn for countries that preserve their standing forests.“The overall numbers are dismal, but the future of forests doesn’t have to be,” said Matson. “New finance initiatives such as the TFFF offer a path to transformative change. If Cop30 delivers on its promise, we could be reporting a very different story next year – one of real progress.”For this to work, financial institutions also need to step up. They are expected to buy bonds worth fourth-fifths of the $125bn that the TFFF hopes to raise. This might help them allay growing criticism that they are profiting from destruction.Elisabeth Hoch, the international portfolio lead at Climate & Company, which is part of the coalition that produced the forest assessment, said only 40% of financial institutions have a deforestation policy, even though forests are worth $150tn a year in economic value.“I want companies and financial institutions to leave the Cop feeling, ‘I must do something or I will be losing out,’” Hoch said. “Cop can generate momentum. It depends on whether financial institutions finally have the guts to do something about this.”

Reform of NZ’s protected lands is overdue – but the public should decide about economic activities

Changes to New Zealand’s conservation laws could delist up to 60% of protected areas. There are better ways to balance ecological values with economic gains.

Getty ImagesThe government’s proposed reforms of the rules governing public conservation land aim to dismantle any potential obstacle to “unleashing economic growth” in protected areas. Currently, about a third of New Zealand’s land is under protection. This ranges from national parks (11.6%) to stewardship areas (9.4%) and conservation parks (5.7%). Twelve other designations make up the rest. Some commercial activities are permitted – including guided walks, aircraft-based sightseeing, ski fields and animal grazing – and approved by the Department of Conservation as “concessions”. The proposed changes to the Conservation Act include a review of land designation. The government could delist or swap up to 60% of the current area under protection. Conservation Minister Tama Potaka said he can’t indicate which designations or locations would be delisted. Nor can he say what percentage of conservation lands would be affected – and where – because changes will be driven by demand for land. The minister only committed to leaving untouched the designations that are difficult to change: national parks, wilderness areas, reserves and world heritage sites. The question of whether more economic benefits can be obtained from protected areas is legitimate. New Zealand does need a radical reform of its conservation areas and legislation. There is potential for better social and economic outcomes. But the proposal consolidates ministerial discretion to unprecedented levels and the government follows a misguided fast-track approach to permitting economic activities such as mining. This could take native biodiversity into dangerous territory. Outdated conservation laws New Zealand holds tight to an outdated approach known as “fortress conservation”. This limits commercial opportunities to specific areas, mostly concentrated around established facilities (roads, hotels) and the edges of designated lands. Even when regulating other activities such as energy generation or agriculture, the idea has been to “sacrifice” some spaces and keep as much land as possible “locked up”. A key reason was that people didn’t know enough about the ecological values of the land. As a proxy, lawmakers relied on the subjective concepts of wilderness values and intrinsic values to justify strict protections over most lands. Insufficient scientific input meant authorities have relied on “ecologically blind” zoning frameworks, such as a planning tool known as the recreation opportunity spectrum. This divides lands according to recreational opportunities and visitor needs. But there is a better path forward – one that allows public decision making and honours international commitments, while achieving better ecological and economic benefits. Towards regulations informed by science This alternative approach is grounded in three key principles. First, it uses gap analysis to identify which ecosystems and species are underprotected. Second, it relies on regulations shaped by ecological knowledge and conservation priorities. Third, it applies the principles of proportionality and precaution, meaning that regulatory responses should match the severity, reversibility and likelihood of environmental harm. Currently, New Zealand’s regulatory framework does not reflect this. New Zealand has signed the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. This means at least 30% of conservation lands must be representative of most, if not all, native ecosystems by 2030. At present, coastal, lowland and dryland ecosystems are under-represented. In contrast, alpine and montane environments, are represented way above the recommended threshold (20% of the remaining cover for that ecosystem). If up to 60% of conservation lands were to be swapped or delisted without prioritising representativeness, vulnerability and rarity, the ecological losses may be immense and irreversible. Rethinking protection categories My research develops a broader reform approach. It also reflects growing international consensus on the need for science-informed conservation planning. I argue New Zealand should set up region-specific and nationwide fora, such as citizen assemblies or consensus conferences. Conversations should focus on specific topics, informed by scientists and iwi. Vulnerable or under-represented ecosystems currently require stronger protection. Deliberations should indicate which activities should be limited or excluded to better protect such areas. We must also consider vulnerability to climate change. Scientists expect that ecosystems may migrate outside protected areas. Consensus should be built around what qualifies as a “significantly over-represented” native ecosystem. Where ecosystems are already well protected and resilient, the public should discuss whether re-designation, land exchanges or even disposals may be appropriate. If lands are retained, consensus should be sought on the economic uses that can maintain ecological health. If the public doesn’t support land delisting or swaps, alternative strategies must be developed to improve ecological representativeness. Sustainable funding mechanisms should also be identified to support these efforts. The Department of Conservation should work with independent scientists and iwi to develop a new zoning framework to guide commercial concessions and recreational access. This framework should capture the principles highlighted above. When applied to each area, it should also enable the mapping of the ecological values feasible to protect. This would help select bespoke regulatory options. In turn, it would balance biodiversity and economic outcomes for each context. Guidance for these steps should be incorporated in a new national strategy, aligned with domestic goals such as the biodiversity strategy and international commitments. New Zealand has the expertise for smart reforms. New Zealanders have the passion for nature and patience required to engage in deliberations. But will politicians have the wisdom to avoid a totally unnecessary mutilation of conservation lands, for undefined biodiversity gains? Valentina Dinica does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

EU's Von Der Leyen Says Private Sector Deals Could Unlock 4 Billion Euros for Western Balkans

TIRANA (Reuters) -European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said on Monday private sector deals signed or in the pipeline could unlock...

TIRANA (Reuters) -European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said on Monday private sector deals signed or in the pipeline could unlock about 4 billion euros ($4.63 billion) in new investment as part of an EU growth plan for the Western Balkans region.During a summit in the Albanian capital Tirana between the EU and the Western Balkans countries, Von der Leyen invited investors to take part in the growth plan that aims to double the size of the region's economies in the next decade.She said that 10 important business deals will be signed in Tirana on Monday, and 24 other potential investments will be discussed on Tuesday."Together they could bring more than 4 billion euros in new investments in the region," Von der Leyen said at the summit. "The time to invest in the Western Balkans is now."The EU has pledged 6 billion euros to help the six Western Balkans nations form a regional common market and join the European common market in areas such as free movement of goods and services, transport and energy.But in order for payments to be made, Albania, Bosnia, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Serbia must implement reforms and resolve outstanding issues with their neighbours.Von der Leyen identified artificial intelligence, clean energy and industrial value chains as three strategic sectors that would integrate local industries into EU supply chains.She cautioned that regulatory integration and industrial alliances are key to this effort.The six countries were promised EU membership years ago but the accession process has slowed to a crawl.The delay is partly due to reluctance among the EU's 27 members and a lack of reforms required to meet EU standards - including those concerning the economy, judiciary, legal systems, environmental protection and media freedoms.Serbia and Montenegro were the first in the region to launch EU membership talks, and Albania and North Macedonia began talks with Brussels in 2022. Bosnia and Kosovo lag far behind.(Reporting by Daria Sito-SucicEditing by Ros Russell)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.Photos You Should See – Oct. 2025

Greenpeace threatens to sue crown estate for driving up cost of offshore wind

Environmental group accuses king’s property management company of ‘milking for profit’ its monopoly ownership of seabedGreenpeace is threatening to sue King Charles’s property management company, accusing it of exploiting its monopoly ownership of the seabed.The environmental lobby group alleges the crown estate has driven up costs for wind power developers and boosted its own profits, as well as the royal household’s income, due to the “aggressive” way it auctions seabed rights. Continue reading...

Greenpeace is threatening to sue King Charles’s property management company, accusing it of exploiting its monopoly ownership of the seabed.The environmental lobby group alleges the crown estate has driven up costs for wind power developers and boosted its own profits, as well as the royal household’s income, due to the “aggressive” way it auctions seabed rights.The crown estate, as the legal owner of the seabed around England, Wales and Northern Ireland, is responsible for auctioning offshore wind rights. It has benefited from the huge growth in the industry, commanding hefty option fees from renewable energy developers to secure areas of the seabed to build their windfarms.It made a £1.1bn profit in its financial year ended in March, double its level just two years ago.Will McCallum, co-executive director at Greenpeace UK, said the estate should be “managing the seabed in the interest of the nation and the common good, not as an asset to be milked for profit and outrageous bonuses”.“We should leave no stone unturned in looking for solutions to lower energy bills that are causing misery to millions of households,” he said.“Given how crucial affordable bills and clean energy are to the government’s agenda, the chancellor should use her powers of direction to ask for an independent review of how these auctions are run. If the problem isn’t fixed before the next round, we may need to let a court decide whether or not what’s happening is lawful.”Greenpeace argues the crown estate has a legal duty not to exploit its monopoly position as owner of the seabed around England, Wales and Northern Ireland, but that it is now in breach of this.The lobby group said it was concerned the crown estate was rationing supply of the seabed to protect high prices, and argued this could harm the development of offshore wind power in the UK.The crown estate has reportedly rejected Greenpeace’s claims, arguing the lobby group has misinterpreted the estate’s legal duties.About 12% of crown estate profits flow to the monarchy to fund its work. This was lowered from 25% in 2023 to offset the rise in profits from offshore wind projects.skip past newsletter promotionOur morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what’s happening and why it mattersPrivacy 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 promotionThe UK’s wind industry is at a critical juncture as the government plans to double onshore wind and quadruple offshore wind power capacity by the end of the decade.The crown estate, which also includes a portfolio of London properties and rural real estate, is worth £15bn. The property assets in London, which is concentrated around Regent Street and St James’s, are valued at £7.1bn.A spokesperson for the crown estate said: “Greenpeace has misunderstood the crown estate’s legal duties and leasing processes. Option fees are not fixed by the crown estate. They are set by the developers through open, competitive auctions and reflect market appetite at the time. As our net revenue is returned to the Treasury, option fees help to ensure that taxpayers benefit from the requisite value from the development of our scarce and precious seabed resource.“The crown estate is accelerating offshore wind in line with government policy to move forward the energy transition at pace and improve energy security.”The Treasury was approached for comment.

Merrily we bring microplastics into the wilderness with our hiking shoes, study shows

Research comparing Adirondack mountain lakes in New York suggests foot traffic is significant source of pollutionHiking shoes and outdoor gear are likely a significant source of microplastic pollution in the wilderness, new research that checked for the pernicious material in several Adirondack mountain lakes in upstate New York suggests.Researchers measured microplastic levels in two lakes that are the among highest sources of water for the Hudson River – one that sees heavy foot traffic from hikers, and another lake that is far away from a path and rarely touched by human activity. Continue reading...

Hiking shoes and outdoor gear are likely a significant source of microplastic pollution in the wilderness, new research that checked for the pernicious material in several Adirondack mountain lakes in upstate New York suggests.Researchers measured microplastic levels in two lakes that are the among highest sources of water for the Hudson River – one that sees heavy foot traffic from hikers, and another lake that is far away from a path and rarely touched by human activity.The samples from the lake that sees heavier foot traffic showed levels that were about 23 times higher.Soft-soled trail shoes and synthetic clothing “appear to be significant contributors to microplastics finding their way into these remote, otherwise pristine waters”, said Tim Keyes, a Sacred Heart University data scientist, who independently worked on the project with his company, Evergreen Business Analytics, and the Adirondack Hamlet to Huts non-profit.Microplastics are tiny bits of plastic either intentionally added to consumer goods, or which are products of larger plastics breaking down. The particles may contain any number of 16,000 plastic chemicals, of which many, such as BPA, phthalates and Pfas, present serious health risks.The substance has been found throughout the human body, and can cross the placental and brain barriers. Among other issues, microplastics are linked to chronic pulmonary inflammation, which can lead to lung cancer.Previous research found that as much as 70% of microplastics in ocean samples were from apparel. Meanwhile, the substance has been found in clouds and in precipitation samples.Keyes in 2023 sampled for microplastics in Lake Tear of the Clouds, which sits at about 4,300ft (1,300 meters). It sees heavy hiker traffic because it is adjacent to a trail segment that is part of several larger trails.Keyes sent the sample to an independent lab that found 9.45 particles per milliliter (mL). Because the area only had hiker traffic, “it was surmised that microplastic pollution was being brought to the area largely by airborne deposition”, the authors wrote, meaning primarily via precipitation.Now they suspect they were wrong. The authors returned two years later in early 2025 to sample Lake Tear, as well as Moss Pond, which the paper describes as “a remote, trailless body of water” at a similar elevation.The independent lab detected about 0.73 particles per mL in Moss Pond, and about 16.54 particles per mL in Lake Tear – a roughly 23-fold difference that suggests the hiker traffic is playing a major role. Lightweight trail shoes can shed microplastics similar to tires, which are another source of pollution, Keyes said.“It’s a pretty clear indication given the stark difference in microplastic levels between the sister body of water that’s a bushwack away compared to Lake Tear, which is on this thoroughfare for hikers that sees tens of thousands of people annually,” Keyes said.Sami Romanick, a microplastics researcher with the Environmental Working Group non-profit who was not involved with the study, said the research’s methodology and design were sound. She agreed with the conclusion that the contamination was likely caused by hiking gear.“It’s a reasonable explanation that’s supported by the data,” Romanick said.The authors say the findings are meant to generate awareness and underscore why industry should produce clothing and shoes that will shed fewer microplastics. Hikers should consider wearing hard-rubber-sole shoes that release less plastic compared with soft soles, and wear synthetic fiber clothing underneath those made with natural fibers.

Offshore oil plan was 'primed for cash flow,' but then it hit California regulators

A Texas company wants to drill for oil off Santa Barbara County's coast. Experts say its path to oil sales is looking more and more challenging.

When a Texas oil company first announced controversial plans to reactivate three drilling rigs off the coast of Santa Barbara County, investor presentations boasted that the venture had “massive resource potential” and was “primed for cash flow generation.” But now, less than two years later, mounting legal setbacks and regulatory issues are casting increasing doubt on the project’s future.Most recently, the California attorney general filed suit against Houston-based Sable Offshore Corp., accusing it of repeatedly putting “profits over environmental protections.” The lawsuit, filed last week in Santa Barbara County Superor Court, accuses Sable of continually failing to follow state laws and regulations intended to protect water resources. Sable, the lawsuit claims, “was at best misinformed, incompetent and incorrect” when it came to understanding and adhering to the California Water Code. “At worst, Sable was simply bamboozling the Regional Water Board to meet a critical deadline,” according to the lawsuit.The action comes less than a month after the Santa Barbara County district attorney’s office filed criminal charges against the company, accusing it of knowingly violating state environmental laws while working on repairs to oil pipelines that have sat idle since a major spill in 2015. The company also faces legal challenges from the California Coastal Commission, environmental groups and even its own investors. These developments now threaten the company’s ability to push forward on what has become an increasingly expensive and complicated project, according to some experts.Clark Williams-Derry, an analyst for the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, said there are still ways Sable could get off the ground and begin oil sales, but the repeated setbacks have become what he called “cumulative risk” for investors, who are key to funding the restart. “Sable is at risk of burning through its cash, and lenders are going to have to make a decision about whether or not this is a good investment,” Williams-Derry said. Ongoing pushback from the public, the state and in lawsuits makes that increasingly a hard argument to make, he said. Sable, however, said it remains steadfast in its goal of reactivating the Santa Ynez Unit — a complex of three offshore platforms, onshore processing facilities and connecting pipelines. The unit was shuttered by a different company a decade ago after a corroded section of pipeline ruptured near Refugio State Beach, creating one of the state’s worst oil spills. The company denies that it has broken any laws and insists that it has followed all necessary regulations. Recently, however, company officials have promoted a new restart plan that could avoid California oversight. Company officials say the new plan would keep the project entirely within federal waters — pivoting away from using the contentious pipelines and from what company officials called California’s “crumbling energy complex.”Jim Flores, the company’s chief executive, said Sable is working with the Trump administration’s National Energy Dominance Council on the plan to use an offshore storage and treatment vessel to transport crude from its offshore wells instead of the pipeline system. Although the company reports that pipeline repairs are complete, the lines have not yet been approved for restart by state regulators. “California has to make a decision soon on the pipeline before Sable signs an agreement for the [offshore vessel] and goes all in on the offshore federal-only option,” Flores said in a statement. The company acknowledges that transporting oil by ship instead of pipeline would dramatically extend the company’s timeline and increase its costs. In a June Securities and Exchange Commission report, Sable said there was “substantial doubt ... about the company’s ability to continue,” given ongoing negative cash flow and stalled regulatory approvals. However, the company says it continues to seek approvals to restart the pipelines from the California Office of the State Fire Marshal. The state fire marshal has said the plans remain under review, but the office has made clear that the pipelines will be approved for operation only “once all compliance and safety requirements, including ... approvals from other state, federal and local agencies, are met.”Deborah Sivas, a professor of environmental law at Stanford’s Law School, said it’s getting harder to see a successful path forward for Sable.“It’s pretty rare that an entity would have all these agencies lined up concerned about their impacts,” Sivas said of state regulators. “These agencies don’t very lightly go to litigation or enforcement actions. ... and the public is strongly against offshore drilling. So those are a whole bunch of reasons that I think are going to be hard obstacles for that company.”But even if Sable can pivot to federal-only oversight under a friendly Trump administration, Williams-Derry said there’s no clear-cut path. “This is an environment where some of the best, most profitable oil companies in the U.S. have cut drilling this year because profits are too low,” Williams-Derry said. Sable has enough money in the bank right now to have a “little bit of running room,” he said, “...but you can imagine that [investors] are going to start running out of patience.”The new lawsuit filed by the California attorney general lays out a year’s worth of instances in which Sable either ignored or defied the California Water Code during the firm’s pipeline repair work. The attorney general’s office called Sable’s evasion of regulatory oversight “egregious,” warranting “substantial penalties.” It’s not immediately clear how much will be demanded, but violations of the California Water Code are subject to a civil liability of up to $5,000 for each day a violation occurs. Despite repeated reminders and warnings from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Coast region, Sable did not comply with the water code, preventing the board “from assuring best management practices ... to avoid, minimize and mitigate impacts to water quality,” the lawsuit said. “No corporation should gain a business advantage by ignoring the law and harming the environment,” Jane Gray, chair of the Central Coast Water Board, said in a statement. “Entities that discharge waste are required to obtain permits from the state to protect water quality. Sable Offshore Corp. is no different.”The case comes months after the California Coastal Commission similarly found that Sable failed to adhere to the state’s Coastal Act despite repeated warnings and fined the company $18 million.

What humans might learn from nature’s real-life zombies

Zombies, it turns out, are real — and science journalist Mindy Weisberger can give you plenty of examples of them. She’s read up on the fungi that take over flies’ bodies, partially digesting them from the inside out before forcing them to climb up blades of grass, so that fungal spores can explode out from […]

Cicadas can be infected by a fungal parasite that turns them into zombies. | Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images Zombies, it turns out, are real — and science journalist Mindy Weisberger can give you plenty of examples of them. She’s read up on the fungi that take over flies’ bodies, partially digesting them from the inside out before forcing them to climb up blades of grass, so that fungal spores can explode out from their swollen corpses and claim new victims.  She’s considered the hairworms that grow inside of crickets before inducing their hosts to toss themselves into a nearby body of water, where the worms emerge from the crickets’ exoskeleton in a miniature but all-too-real imitation of the alien in Alien.  She’s even researched the snails that fall victim to certain flatworms. The flatworms’ larvae need to be eaten by birds to reach the next stage of their lifecycle, so broodsacs full of larvae take up residence in the snails’ eyestalks and turn them into pulsing, colorful, caterpillar-like bird-lures. The parasite also manipulates the snails into wandering into the open in order to increase the odds that a bird will spot the snails and devour both their eyestalks and the larvae within them.  Weisberger dug into these specific nightmare-inducing examples of parasitic mind-control — and many others — as part of her effort to understand real-life “zombification” in her book, Rise of the Zombie Bugs. What she found was that these natural zombie stories are not only sources of inspiration for horrifying fiction — they could also inspire researchers who are trying to better understand everything from immune responses to pest control.  So we spoke to Weisberger about research on real-life zombies for Unexplainable, Vox’s science podcast. What follows is a version of our conversation, edited for clarity and length. There’s much more in the full podcast, so listen to Unexplainable wherever you get podcasts, including Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Let’s start by just defining some terms. What do we mean when we say “zombifier,” or “zombie?” Sure. A zombifier is an organism that manipulates the behavior of its host, and a zombie is an organism that is being manipulated to behave in a way that it normally would not, and which only benefits the parasite that’s manipulating it.  Let’s say you catch a cold — you’re gonna change your behavior because you’re feeling sick. You feel like you need to rest more, you need to drink more water. These are all things that help you recover, that help you fight off the infection. So in a certain sense, that’s the cold virus generating a change in behavior, but it’s a behavioral change that actually benefits you.  For a zombie, the changes to its behavior are not something that benefit the host. They only benefit the parasite. That’s what makes it a zombie. So it’d be like if I got sick and instead of going into my room and trying to sleep it off, I went and I licked everybody that I could lick in order to spread it.  Yeah, exactly. There are zombifying viruses; there are zombifying fungi; there are insects that are able to zombify their hosts. There are worms that can zombify their hosts. Most of the organisms that they infect are arthropods — bugs. (I do have to apologize to entomologists, because as far as entomologists are concerned, bugs are only insects with sucking mouth parts. However, as we all know, colloquially, “bugs” covers a much broader range.) What are some of the biggest categories of mysteries about how [zombifiers do what they do]? Some of the biggest mysteries start with the moment that the host is infected, because obviously a body’s first response to any kind of infection is going to be an immune response. The first thing that a zombifier needs to do is to somehow get past that. That’s a big question for zombifiers, from viruses to wasps to fungi to worms: When they get inside an organism where they’re not supposed to be, how exactly are they telling their host immune system, “No, there’s nothing to see here! Just go about your business! You don’t need to worry about me!”  Another one is, once it gets to the point of manipulation, what are the cues? How does it decide “OK, now’s the right time to get this host moving to a place where I need to be”?  The third big question is obviously the nuts and bolts of: How is it manipulating behavior? The thing about this field is that there is still so much that scientists are piecing together about the precise mechanisms of how this works. Behavior is something that is just super complicated, even in insects.   So, when we look at, for example, the wasp that parasitizes orb-weaving spiders, scientists have found that in the spiders that are zombified, what the wasp does — it lays an egg on the spider. The egg hatches, and the wasp larva essentially piggybacks on the spider and drinks from it like it’s a living juice box.   And the spider just goes about its business until the larva is ready to reproduce. And then somehow the wasp larvae is manipulating the spider to think that it’s time to molt, so that the spider makes a different type of web than it normally does, something called a resting web. It’s reinforced, and it’s meant to support the spider and protect the spider while it’s molting.  And then once that web is done, the wasp larvae drains the spider dry, the spider’s empty husk of a corpse drops to the ground, and the wasp larva builds its cocoon and sets itself up in the spider’s final web to hang out until it becomes an adult wasp. What scientists found is that when spiders start making that final web, their little spider brains are being flooded with ecdysteroids, which is the hormone that the spider naturally releases when it’s ready to build a molting web. And scientists aren’t sure yet: Is the larvae actually producing the ecdysteroids? Is it somehow triggering its production in the spider through another compound? That’s something that they’re still figuring out. Why is it important to understand how this behavior manipulation works? In a lot of ways, this is looking at sort of really big questions about how behavior works, which is something that scientists are still piecing together, on so many levels for all different types of organisms, because there are so many factors that shape behavior. Some of them are genetics; some of them are biochemical; some of them have to do with environments; some of them have to do with social relationships. So, this is one way of trying to understand behavior writ large.  You mentioned that these insects suppress the immune systems of their hosts. Is there stuff that we could learn from that about how immune systems work in general? Oh yeah. Looking at the immunosuppressive aspect of zombifiers is definitely something that is a huge area of interest, because that could inform the development of immunosuppressive drugs, which is something that is just something that would be hugely beneficial to people.  Not that this should be all about what’s in it for me, but that is usually a consideration for scientific research: Could there potentially be applications for this that have medical applications? And so, there is not yet a direct line between any research into how zombifiers evade their host’s immune system and the development of some kind of pharmaceutical immunosuppressive. But that’s definitely something that is part of the mix when scientists are following that line of investigation. I think about all the insects that invade homes, some of which are beneficial, some of which are less so. Could we potentially borrow from this to fight off pests? Pest control is definitely one avenue that scientists have explored. Is there some way that we can take what we’re seeing these zombifiers do to insects and apply it to insects that we don’t like?  So baculoviruses — which are these viruses that infect caterpillars and make them climb and then dissolve their bodies into goo — this is something that has been deployed as a strategy for pest control in China and in Europe, in the US, in Brazil.  These types of viruses are an interesting alternative to traditional insecticides because they are very targeted. They’re less toxic to the environment. They’re not harmful to insects that are not their host species and they’re not toxic to people. But they’re also not as quick as I think the insecticides that people have gotten used to. And people like things to be quick and they like them to be absolute.  So what seems like the best way is perhaps to incorporate this alongside insecticides, and use this along with other approaches, because there are a lot of benefits to just going full-on zombie warfare to get rid of our agricultural pests. Could humans be zombified this way? Like, are we also susceptible to this? Well, there are some types of pathogens that are known to manipulate behavior in mammals and indeed in humans too. So rabies, of course. There have been medical cases of rabies-infected humans that are thousands of years old with documentation of heightened aggression. So there is already a virus among us that can manipulate human behavior.  And recently, there have been studies into Toxoplasma gondii, which is the pathogen that causes toxoplasmosis. Its definitive host is cats. It’s very entrenched amongst human populations. And in fact, many, many people, millions of people, carry Toxoplasma gondii, but it doesn’t cause any symptoms. It tends to be dangerous in people that are pregnant or in immunocompromised people. Most of the people who are carrying Toxoplasma gondii have no symptoms.  However, there have been studies recently in the last 10, 15 years or so, that have looked at people who are carrying the parasite and have found that there does seem to be evidence of certain types of behavior: of being more risk-taking, of being bolder. And what’s interesting about it is that Toxoplasma gondii is known for manipulating behavior in rodents. And what it does is it makes them bolder and less afraid of cats.  What? Because Toxoplasma gondii needs to reproduce inside cats. So it infects rodents, and then to get back into a cat, it makes the rodent less afraid of and attracted to the smell of cat pee. And that brings the rodent closer to a cat than it would normally go. And then once it’s eaten, then the parasite is back inside the cat.  And scientists have found that this is true for other animals too. So hyena cubs that are infected with Toxoplasma gondii are bolder around lions and are more likely to be eaten by lions. Chimpanzees that are infected with Toxoplasma gondii lose their fear of jaguars. And some studies found that people who are infected with Toxoplasma gondii are more likely to make risky business decisions or be bolder in traffic. There’s still a lot of work to be done because obviously human behavior is its own form of complicated. But there is some evidence that seems to suggest that Toxoplasma gondii can shape human behavior, too. What?  Did I just blow your mind? So there could literally at this moment be zombifiers within us shaping us in some way? It’s entirely possible. There are so many things that make us who we are that shape how we behave. There are environmental factors; there are social factors. But, you know, there might also be zombifiers.

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.