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

Breaking Down the Force of Water in the Texas Floods

Flash floods last week in Texas caused the Guadalupe River to rise dramatically, reaching three stories high in just two hours

Over just two hours, the Guadalupe River at Comfort, Texas, rose from hip-height to three stories tall, sending water weighing as much as the Empire State building downstream roughly every minute it remained at its crest.Comfort offers a good lens to consider the terrible force of a flash flood’s wall of water because it’s downstream of where the river’s rain-engorged branches met. The crest was among the highest ever recorded at the spot — flash flooding that appears so fast it can “warp our brains,” said James Doss-Gollin, assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering at Rice University.The Texas flood smashed through buildings, carried away cars and ripped sturdy trees out by the roots, dropping the debris in twisted piles when the water finally ebbed. It killed more than 100 people, prompted scores of rescues and left dozens of others missing. The deaths were concentrated upriver in Kerr County, an area that includes Camp Mystic, the devastated girls' camp, where the water hit early and with little notice.Water is capable of such destruction because it is heavy and can move fast. Just one cubic foot of water — imagine a box a bit larger than the size of a basketball — weighs about 62 pounds (28 kilograms). When the river rose to its peak at Comfort, 177,000 cubic feet — or 11 million pounds (5 million kilograms) of water — flowed by every second.“When you have that little lead time ... that means you can’t wait until the water level starts to rise,” Doss-Gollin said. “You need to take proactive measures to get people to safety.” Water as heavy as a jumbo jet A small amount of water — less than many might think — can sweep away people, cars and homes. Six inches (15.2 centimeters) is enough to knock people off their feet. A couple of feet of fast-moving water can take away an SUV or truck, and even less can move cars.“Suppose you are in a normal car, a normal sedan, and a semitrailer comes and pushes you at the back of the car. That’s the kind of force you’re talking about,” said Venkataraman Lakshmi, a University of Virginia professor and president of the hydrology section of the American Geophysical Union.And at Comfort, it took just over 15 minutes for so much water to arrive that not only could it float away a large pickup truck, but structures were in danger — water as heavy as a jumbo jet moved by every second.At that point, “We are past vehicles, homes and things can start being affected,” said Daniel Henz, flood warning program manager at the flood control district of Maricopa County, Arizona, an area that gets dangerous scary flash floods.The water not only pushes objects but floats them, and that can actually be scarier. The feeling of being pushed is felt immediately, letting a person know they are in danger. Upward force may not be felt until it is overwhelming, according to Upmanu Lall, a water expert at Arizona State University and Columbia University.“The buoyancy happens — it’s like a yes, no situation. If the water reaches a certain depth and it has some velocity, you’re going to get knocked off (your feet) and floating simultaneously,” he said. The mechanics of a flash flood The landscape created the conditions for what some witnesses described as a fast-moving wall of water. Lots of limestone covered by a thin layer of soil in hilly country meant that when rain fell, it ran quickly downhill with little of it absorbed by the ground, according to S. Jeffress Williams, senior scientist emeritus with the U.S. Geological Survey.A flash flood generally starts with an initial lead wave and then builds as rain rushes over the landscape and into the river basin. It may rise quickly, but the water still takes some time to converge. The water crumpled cars into piles, twisted steel and knocked trees down as if they were strands of grass. Images captured the chaos and randomness of the water’s violence.And then, not as fast as it rose, but still quickly, the river receded.Five hours after its crest at Comfort, it had already dropped 10 feet (3 meters), revealing its damage in retreat. A couple of days after it started to rise, a person could stand with their head above the river again.“Everything just can happen, very, very quickly,” Henz said.Associated Press writer Seth Borenstein in Washington contributed.The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family Foundation for coverage of water and environmental policy. The AP is solely responsible for all content. For all of AP’s environmental coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/climate-and-environmentCopyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - June 2025

Trump’s EPA Just Released an Infomercial for Conspiracy Theorists

“To anyone who’s ever looked up to the streaks in the sky and asked, ‘What the heck is going on?’” Lee Zeldin has an answer for you.

EPA administrator Lee Zeldin. Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images You’d be forgiven if you mistook Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lee Zeldin’s new three-minute video released Thursday as an infomercial for some obscure science fiction literature. Shared on social media and touted as proof of the Trump administration’s “total transparency,” Zeldin’s video gives a heavy nod to conspiracy theorists, even as misinformation is fueling death threats over flooding in Texas that some extremists claim was caused by a “weather weapon.” Directing viewers to new EPA resources on “geoengineering” and “contrails,” Zeldin encourages the public to ask questions, even if those questions have already been answered over and over again. “Concerned Americans have urgent and important questions about geoengineering and contrails,” Zeldin insists, lamenting that “for years” people asking such questions were “vilified” by both the media and the government. “That era is over,” he says. “Instead of simply dismissing these questions and concerns as ‘baseless conspiracies,’ we’re meeting them head-on.” “To anyone who’s ever looked up to the streaks in the sky and asked, ‘What the heck is going on?’ Or seen headlines about private actors and even governments looking to ‘blot out the sun’ in the name of stopping global warming, we’ve endeavored to answer all of your questions,” Zeldin says. “In fact, EPA shares many of the same concerns.” In a bait-and-switch likely to frustrate any devout conspiracy theorists, however, one of the new EPA webpages actually debunks the “chemtrails” theory Zeldin appears to wink at in the video, stressing that condensation is a “normal effect” of air travel and not a result of any malicious, weather-related shenanigans. The page on geoengineering is not so unequivocal, however, listing a series of techniques meant to “cool the Earth by intentionally modifying the amount of sunlight” but mentioning only briefly that these ideas are “being studied” and not widely practiced. Solar Geoengineering has been studied by scientists for years as a way to potentially counter climate change, but it’s still largely conceptual. “Solar geoengineering, a theoretical practice which would modify the atmosphere to shade Earth’s surface by reflecting sunlight back into space, is not taking place at scale anywhere in the world,” the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said last fall. Zeldin’s announcement seems only to have emboldened some fringe voices who had linked weather modification to the Texas floods. Republican congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene of “Jewish space lasers” fame was among the controversial figures to suggest the disaster was caused by geoengineering. She welcomed Zeldin’s announcement on Thursday and used it to push for legislation making weather modifications a “felony offense.” The CEO of Rainmaker, a California-based cloud-seeding company that had done work in Texas prior to the storms, said the company has received “in excess of 100 explicit death threats” after being falsely blamed for the disaster. Cloud seeding, which involves adding aerosols to clouds in order to clear fog or trigger precipitation, is not capable of creating storms, experts have said. Sign Up for the Intelligencer Newsletter Daily news about the politics, business, and technology shaping our world.

Freedom of Voice: A Newcomer’s Guide to Safe and Effective Protesting

How to participate in causes you believe in — in a manner that will be noticed, respected, and heard. The post Freedom of Voice: A Newcomer’s Guide to Safe and Effective Protesting appeared first on The Revelator.

The “No Kings” protests in June drew an estimated 4-6 million people to more than 2,000 events around the country — making it one of the largest protest turnouts in history. Many attendees interviewed during “No Kings” revealed that they had never attended a protest before. This continues two trends we’ve seen since the Women’s March in 2017: More and more people are protesting, and every event is someone’s first protest. Environmental causes have been a big part of this. The 2019 Global Climate Strike was the largest climate protest to date. And a recent survey found that 1 in 10 people in the United States attended environmental protests between June 2022 and June 2023. But protesting for the planet (or against oppressive government actions) poses risks that newcomers should understand. Protesting itself can be physically demanding. Meanwhile, legislatures around the country (and the world) have taken steps to criminalize protest, and right-wing agitators have increasingly used violence to harm or intimidate protestors. With all of that in mind, The Revelator has launched a multipart series on protest safety, especially geared toward first-timers. After all, it’s going to be a long, hot summer for environmental advocates seeking to make their voices heard in public across America and the globe. Before the Protest Are there meetings, including virtual meetings, from the organizing entity? Attend if you can; they’ll help you to understand the specific protest messaging so everyone is on the same page before the protest. Learn if there’s a check-in process: Will there be signs, T-shirts, hats, or other identifying items to receive while registering or when you show up for this protest? Make sure you sign up for text lists and other communications in case of inclement weather, parking issues, and other last-minute changes for the location and presentation of the protest. Know who to contact and what to do if you run into trouble while protesting. Decide how you’re getting there (in an eco-friendly way, if possible): Find out if public transportation or carpools are available, or organize your own rideshares. What to Bring to a Protest — and What NOT to Bring Plan ahead: Bring the right supplies for a day of protesting. What to Bring: A backpack and belt bag that are durable and not bulky. The belt pack keeps your hands free. Comfortable, quality walking shoes. This is non-negotiable. Wear closed-toe shoes that are broken-in and for walking long distances. Protest signs that clearly display your message in big, bold letters and can be easily read from far away. Make sure your signs are made with sturdy, bright, durable boards, with a comfortable handle. Short messages are better than a block of text. Stay hydrated. Bring a lot of water — which may also prove useful for clearing eyes and face of tear gas and pepper spray. (Milk has been disproven as tear-gas relief.) Lightweight, nutritious, protein-rich snacks: energy bars, nuts, etc. A face mask and safety goggles for smoke and tear gas. These can also hide your identity from cameras and police surveillance. A hat, sunglasses, jacket, umbrella…Clothing should be appropriate for changing weather conditions and can perform double duty as cover for any identifying skin markings. These items can also obscure your face from facial recognition technology. A change of clothes (just in case). Hand sanitizer and wipes. A first-aid kit if the organization does not provide a medical station or personnel that can be easily identified as first aid providers in the crowd. Your ID in case you’re detained. Your phone. (Essential for staying connected, but digital privacy may be a concern. See our resources section below for some guidance.) A power bank to charge devices. Other items might include a cooling towel; flashlight or headlamp; and a lanyard with a list of emergency contacts, medical conditions and medications. Things Not to Bring for a Demonstration: Alcohol or drugs. Spray paint. Firearms, knives, mace, pepper spray, tasers or weapons of any sort, even items that might be construed as weapons (such as a small Swiss army knife, metal eating utensils, etc.). Firecrackers or fireworks or anything explosive. Flammable liquids. Flares and smoke bombs. Torches (flashlights are okay). While You’re at the Protest The late civil rights icon John Lewis said, “Get in good trouble, necessary trouble,” encouraging people to challenge the status quo. Do: engage in group activities, meet and greet people. This is a great opportunity to forge friendships behind a greater cause, and for future protests or community organizing. Help those around you. Study your surroundings and people around you. Stay alert and be aware of the people in your group: Is there someone who has joined the demonstration who seems too aggressive and appears to be carrying firearms, weapons, and other tools of violence? If you get triggered and feel overly emotional with what’s happening, take that as your cue to head home. Empirical research shows that the most effective protests are non-violent. Political scientist Omar Wasow saw this in a study of the 1960s U.S. Civil Rights movement, finding that when protesters were violent, it prompted news stories focused on crime and disorder, and lent more sympathy to the opposition, who then become viewed as promoting law and order. In contrast, peaceful demonstrations that are violently repressed by the state make media coverage sympathetic to the protesters and strengthen peaceful movements. Remember that you’re not protesting in a vacuum. Don’t take actions that feed the opposition news media. Your behavior, attire, and reactions to provocative actions by the opposition and the police, National Guard, or military could be recorded by smart phones or the media, especially social media. Assume you’re being watched and that your words are being listened to. Don’t taunt or antagonize the opposition and de-escalate any confrontations that are becoming heated or aggressive. Stay calm and focused. Don’t rise to the bait of police or military force. Don’t throw things at them. Be passive but firm in your presentation. If you are arrested, don’t struggle or fight. Be polite and compliant — and the only word coming from your mouth should be, “lawyer.” Staying calm and respectful can be challenging when participating in a protest demonstration. Emotions run high, especially in the hot summer months. However, being a “peaceful protester” with resolute calm and dignity makes a greater impression on the public, many of whom sit on the fence about current issues and events. These are people who may be getting inaccurate information and have become dismissive of our endeavors as “unserious” activism. Screaming, yelling, and deriding don’t win them over but reinforce their opinion of us as obnoxious troublemakers. Opposition media outlets will cherry-pick video footage of “bad actors” and edit these bits of footage in loops that will play constantly in the media. As a result, your protest message will be ignored over the more inflammatory messaging about your cause. Coming Up: This series will continue with a look at the history of peaceful protesting and tips on how to organize a protest. And we want to hear from you. What questions do you have about protesting? What advice would you share? Send your comments, suggestions, questions, or even brief essays to comments@therevelator.org. Sources and Resources: Summer of Change: New Books to Inspire Environmental Action The Activist Handbook and other sources below provide practical guides and resources so you can plan your demonstration successfully. Indivisible  and No Kings offer training and education on protesting safely and effectively, as well as new and upcoming protest events. The Human Rights Campaign: Tips for Preparedness, Peaceful Protesting, and Safety ACLU Guide: How to Protest Safely and Responsibly Amnesty International Protest Guide Wired: How to Protest Safely: What to Bring, What to Do, and What to Avoid Infosec 101 for Activists “The New Science of Social Change: A Modern Handbook for Activists”  by Lisa Mueller “Agenda Seeding: How 1960s Black Protests Moved Elites, Public Opinion and Voting”  by Omar Wasow “Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha)”  by M. K. Gandhi Republish this article for free! Read our reprint policy. Previously in The Revelator: Saving America’s National Parks and Forests Means Shaking Off the Rust of Inaction The post Freedom of Voice: A Newcomer’s Guide to Safe and Effective Protesting appeared first on The Revelator.

New Mexico sues US air force over Pfas pollution from military base

High levels of Pfas stemming from the base have tainted water, damaged crops and poisoned cows in the areaThe state of New Mexico is suing the US air force over its refusal to comply with orders to address extremely high levels of Pfas pollution stemming from its base, which has tainted drinking water for tens of thousands of people, damaged crops and poisoned dairy cows.Though the military acknowledges Pfas-laden firefighting foam from Cannon air force base is the source of a four mile chemical plume in the aquifer below Clovis, New Mexico, it has refused to comply with most state orders to address the issue. Continue reading...

The state of New Mexico is suing the US air force over its refusal to comply with orders to address extremely high levels of Pfas pollution stemming from its base, which has tainted drinking water for tens of thousands of people, damaged crops and poisoned dairy cows.Though the military acknowledges Pfas-laden firefighting foam from Cannon air force base is the source of a four mile chemical plume in the aquifer below Clovis, New Mexico, it has refused to comply with most state orders to address the issue.The new lawsuit filed by the state’s justice and environmental departments is the latest salvo in the seven-year battle over the pollution, and comes after changes to state law that strengthened New Mexico’s legal position.The air force’s inaction has forced state taxpayers to shoulder the cost, and the plume has “become a ward of the state”, said James Kenney, secretary of the New Mexico environment department.“They’ve managed to litigate against the state, they’ve allowed the plume to go unchecked, and in the mind of the state and much of the community, they’ve done nothing of substance,” Kenney added.Pfas are a class of about 15,000 compounds most frequently used to make products water-, stain- and grease-resistant. They have been linked to cancer, birth defects, decreased immunity, high cholesterol, kidney disease and a range of other serious health problems. They are dubbed “forever chemicals” because they do not naturally break down in the environment.Pfas are a common ingredient in firefighting foam, and the military is in the process of phasing it out because the highly toxic substance has widely contaminated water and the environment around over 700 bases nationwide.In 2018, Cannon’s Pfas was found to have poisoned drinking water for over 100 private wells, and has so far taken out one municipal well that serves Clovis, a city of 40,000 people. Levels found in surface water were about 27,000 times higher than US Environmental Protection Agency drinking water limits.The pollution also continues to contaminate thousands of acres of crops that rely on the aquifer for water, raising questions about the safety of those products. Local dairy farmers in 2018 were forced to euthanize about 3,500 cows that had contaminated milk.In August, another 7,000 gallons of Pfas-contaminated wastewater leaked from an air force pond into groundwater, but the air force has refused to pay a $70,000 state fine.The air force in a statement told the Guardian it does not comment on active litigation.In 2019, New Mexico issued a corrective action permit that stipulated how it should remediate the plume. The air force then sued New Mexico in federal court, alleging that the Pfas foam is not a hazardous substance, and the state lacked the authority to make the order. That awaits an opinion from a federal court.The New Mexico legislature designated the Pfas-laden foam as a hazardous substance under state law in response. The new suit, in state court, asks a judge to order the air force to provide water treatment systems to affected residents, or connect those whose wells are contaminated to municipal sources. It also calls for pollution controls around the base and compensation for those whose property has been affected, among other measures.The nation’s hazardous waste laws allow states to establish requirements for substances like Pfas and firefighting foam. The US Department of Justice and the air force’s refusal to clean up the waste is essentially “flipping the bird” at US law, Kenney said.The air force has provided filtration systems for some homes with the highest levels of Pfas, but it has not maintained the systems, nor has it provided any for agriculture. The military has not gone far enough, Kenney said.“If they contaminated people’s drinking and agricultural water … and they’re litigating instead of remediating, then we can’t sit back and say they’re doing the right thing,” Kenney added.Cannon is not isolated, and the air force has received criticism for slow responses to pollution around the country. After years of resisting orders to address Pfas from a base in Tucson, Arizona, that threatened the city’s drinking water, the air force late last year agreed to fund new filtration systems.Congress has made around $3bn of funding available annually for Pfas remediation at military bases, but the air force often still “slow rolls” the work, said Jared Hayes, senior policy analyst with the Environmental Working Group nonprofit, which tracks military Pfas pollution. He noted the air force’s remedial investigation of the New Mexico plume is not due until the end of 2026.“We’ve seen similar situations across the country where the air force is generally dragging its feet when it comes to cleaning up Pfas pollution,” Hayes said. “Communities in New Hampshire, Michigan, Arizona, New Mexico are waiting and waiting for cleanup, but it’s still a long way off.”

Trying to Quit Smoking? These Expert-Backed Tips Can Help

By David Hill, MD, Chair, Board of Directors, American Lung Association HealthDay ReporterTHURSDAY, July 10, 2025 (HealthDay News) — According to...

THURSDAY, July 10, 2025 (HealthDay News) — According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in 2022, the majority of the 28.8 million U.S. adults who smoked cigarettes wanted to quit; approximately half had tried to quit, but fewer than 10% were successful.Many folks say quitting smoking was the hardest thing they have ever done. This includes people who have climbed mountains, corporate ladders, tackled childbirth and raised families.Successfully overcoming tobacco addiction is a process, and it takes time. It can’t be done at once. Individuals taught themselves how to smoke, vape or chew tobacco products and practiced for so long that the behavior became as automatic as breathing, eating or sleeping.Quitting, then, is a process of overcoming addiction and learned behaviors. Individuals must learn to manage nicotine addiction, unlearn their automatic behavior of tobacco use, and replace it with healthy new alternatives.Because tobacco dependence is a chronic relapsing condition, Freedom From Smoking® identifies quitting tobacco use and maintaining abstinence as a process in which a person may cycle through multiple periods of relapse and remission before experiencing long-term lifestyle and behavior change.The CDC suggests that it takes eight to 11 attempts before quitting permanently.It’s essential to understand three challenges associated with quitting and create a plan to address each with proven-effective strategies:1. Psychological Link of Nicotine Addiction Over time, using tobacco products becomes an automatic behavior that needs to be unlearned.  After quitting, emotions can overwhelm a person.  Grief can also play an important role in the quitting process.  Create support systems through counseling classes, and among family, friends and co-workers. Mark a calendar for every day you are tobacco-free and reward yourself for days you avoid use. Use positive self-talk when cravings arise, such as “the urge will pass whether I smoke or not” or “smoking is not an option for me.”2. Sociocultural Link of Nicotine AddictionCertain activities and environmental cues can trigger the urge to smoke. As people mature, social factors or cues play a role in continuing use.  People who use tobacco may be reluctant to give up those connections or routines.  Identify your triggers and use replacements such as cinnamon sticks, doodling on a notepad or finding another activity to keep your hands busy. Create change and break routine by using the 3 A’s — AVOID (the situation), ALTER (the situation) or ALTERNATIVE (substitute something else). Keep a quit kit/survival kit with you at all times with items you can use to replace tobacco product use when the urge comes.3. Biological (Physical) Link of Nicotine AddictionAddiction occurs when a substance — like nicotine, alcohol or cocaine — enters the brain and activates the brain’s receptors for that substance, producing pleasure.  When a person quits, the brain’s nicotine receptors activate, creating cravings and withdrawal symptoms.  Over time, the receptors become inactive, and the withdrawal symptoms and urges to use fade away. Use cessation medications approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (prescription or over-the-counter) in the proper doses for the full time period recommended by a clinician. Do not stop treatment early. Exercise alternative ways to release dopamine such as physical activity or listening to music.  Use stress management techniques, including deep breathing and relaxation exercises, daily if possible.Nearly 2 in 3 adults who have ever smoked cigarettes have successfully quit, according to the CDC You can, too! To learn more about strategies for countering the challenges associated with the three-link chain of nicotine addiction, visit Quit Smoking & Vaping | American Lung Association.Dr. David Hill is a member of the Lung Association's National Board of Directors and is the immediate past chair of the Northeast Regional Board of the American Lung Association. He serves on the Leadership Board of the American Lung Association in Connecticut and is a former chair of that board. He is a practicing pulmonary and critical care physician with Waterbury Pulmonary Associates and serves as their director of clinical research. He is an assistant clinical professor of medicine at the Yale University School of Medicine, an assistant clinical professor at the Frank Netter School of Medicine at Quinnipiac University, and a clinical instructor at the University of Connecticut School of Medicine.Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Labour housing plans could destroy 215,000 hectares of nature in England, analysis shows

Critics say change in biodiversity protections would harm environmental recovery and make scheme ineffectivePlans to weaken environmental regulations for small housebuilders would allow developers in England to build on an area the size of the Yorkshire Dales in the next 10 years without replacing the nature they destroy, according to analysis.Labour wants to remove the requirement for small housebuilders – those whose sites are under a hectare (2.5 acres) – to replace the nature they destroy under existing rules known as biodiversity net gain. Continue reading...

Plans to weaken environmental regulations for small housebuilders would allow developers to build on an area the size of the Yorkshire Dales in the next 10 years without replacing the nature they destroy, according to analysis.Labour wants to remove the requirement for small housebuilders in England – defined as those whose sites are under a hectare (2.5 acres) – to replace the nature they destroy under rules known as biodiversity net gain.Ministers are consulting on plans to tear up the rules for small developers to boost growth. But analysis of the impacts of Labour’s proposal by environmental economists from the consultancy Eftec, suggests 97% of planning approvals – 76,800 out of 79,300 every year – would be exempt from the requirement to replace the nature that is destroyed if the rules are changed.This would mean an area of more than 215,000 hectares, the size of the Yorkshire Dales, could be built on over the next decade with no requirement for developers to compensate for any of the nature they destroy.The biodiversity net gain rules were brought in to help tackle devastating nature loss. The UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world, and the government is signed up to a pledge to boost nature recovery by committing to protect 30% of land and sea for nature by 2030.Biodiversity net gain, which requires developers to ensure a 10% increase in biodiversity, came into effect for major developments in February 2024 and for small sites in April 2024. But government plans to scrap the rules for small developers – who dominate planning in England – would render the scheme utterly ineffective, the report says.“Biodiversity net gain is a hugely important principle: industries that harm nature should contribute to its recovery,” said Richard Benwell, of Wildlife and Countryside Link, which commissioned the research with the Lifescape Project. “The proposal to drastically widen the number of exempt small sites from the system would be a return to the bad old days of damaging development and torpedo confidence in private investment in nature recovery.”Biodiversity net gain was supposed to apply to most planning applications but the research found 69,500 out of 80,400 (86%) approved planning applications between March 2024 and February 2025 claimed exemptions, in what the researchers believe could be widespread abuses by developers.Under current rules biodiversity net gain is not required for sites less than 25 sq metres, or those that do not affect protected habitats. But developers are able to “self declare” to claim these exemptions.Economists found a rise in claims for these “de minimis” exemptions, after the rules came into force last year. “The scale of misuse across different sizes of planning applications suggests the de minimis exemption may be being intentionally misinterpreted,” the report said.Joan Edwards, the director of policy and public affairs at the Wildlife Trusts, said the government wanted investment from the private sector to help it meet its binding nature recovery targets by 2030. But changing the system after just 13 months could destroy the biodiversity market.“Scrapping biodiversity net gain for small sites would be a spectacular own goal,” she said. “Nothing undermines private-sector confidence more than a government that chops and changes the rules on a whim.”The economists suggest Labour should instead tweak its changes to improve the efficiency of the system. It suggests excluding only sites of up to 0.1 hectares that align with the government’s proposed new definition of “very small sites”. This would also remove the current loophole that allows some very large sites to sidestep BNG entirely by claiming de minimis exemption.Thousands of individuals and organisations have responded to the government consultation on the changes, which ends on 24 July.Robert Oates, the chief executive and founder of ecological consultancy Arbtech, said: “The government’s proposal to weaken biodiversity net gain for small sites threatens both its goals: supporting nature recovery and accelerating housebuilding.“Small site biodiversity net gain has only been in place for 13 months, yet developers and businesses have spent years preparing for it. U-turns like this create damaging instability. Developers need certainty, not another policy rewrite.”A government spokesperson said: “This government is fully committed to biodiversity net gain and this consultation explores easier, quicker and cheaper routes to deliver gains for both developers and nature. We are also consulting on how biodiversity net gain should be applied to nationally significant infrastructure projects to provide a clear framework that ensures major new developments deliver for nature and contribute to our legally binding targets.”

Lead Exposure Can Harm Kids' Memory, Study Says

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterTHURSDAY, July 10, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Even low levels of lead exposure can harm kids' working memory,...

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterTHURSDAY, July 10, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Even low levels of lead exposure can harm kids' working memory, potentially affecting their education and development, according to a new study.Exposure to lead in the womb or during early childhood appears to increase kids' risk of memory decay, accelerating the rate at which they forget information, researchers reported July 9 in the journal Science Advances.“There may be no more important a trait than the ability to form memories. Memories define who we are and how we learn,” said senior researcher Dr. Robert Wright, chair of environmental medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City.“This paper breaks new ground by showing how environmental chemicals can interfere with the rate of memory formation,” Wright said in a news release.For the study, researchers took blood lead measurements from the mothers of 576 children in Mexico during the second and third trimester of pregnancy. Later, the team took samples directly from the kids themselves, at ages 4 to 6.Between 6 and 8 years of age, the kids took a test called the delayed matching-to-sample task, or DMST, to measure their rate of forgetting.In the test, kids had to remember a simple shape for up to 32 seconds after it had been briefly shown to them, and then choose it from three offered options.The test lasted for 15 minutes, with correct responses rewarding the child with tokens that could be exchanged for a toy at the end of the experiment.“Children with higher levels of blood lead forgot the test stimulus faster than those with low blood lead levels,” Wright said.Researchers noted that the Mexican children in the study had higher median blood lead levels than those typically found in U.S. kids 6 to 10 years old – 1.7 Ug/dL versus 0.5 Ug/dL. (Median means half were higher, half were lower.)Children in Mexico are exposed to lead through commonly used lead-glazed ceramics used to cook, store and serve food, researchers said.However, the Mexican kids’ blood lead levels were still lower than the 3.5 Ug/dL level used by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to identify kids in the United States with more lead exposure than others, researchers added.“In the U.S., the reduction of environmental exposures to lead, such as lead-based paint in homes, lead pipes, and lead in foods such as spices, is still of continued importance as even low levels of lead can have detrimental effects on children’s cognitive function and development,” researchers wrote in their paper.This study also shows that the DMST test can be used to help test the effect of other environmental hazards on kids’ memory, researchers said.“Children are exposed to many environmental chemicals, and this model provides a validated method to further assess the effect of additional environmental exposures, such as heavy metals, air pollution, or endocrine disruptors, on children’s working memory,” co-lead researcher Katherine Svensson, a postdoctoral fellow in environmental medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, said in a news release.SOURCES: Mount Sinai, news release, July 9, 2025; Science Advances, July 9, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

South West Water allowed to invest £24m rather than pay £19m fine

Campaigners say Ofwat ‘subservient to industry and its rampaging pursuit of profit’ after illegal sewage dischargesSouth West Water has agreed to pay a £24m penalty for illegal sewage discharges into the environment from its treatment works.The regulator for the water and wastewater sector in England and Wales, Ofwat, says the company, which has 1.8 million customers in Cornwall, Devon, the Isles of Scilly and parts of Dorset and Somerset, is being penalised for dumping sewage in breach of its legal permit conditions. Continue reading...

South West Water has agreed to pay a £24m penalty for illegal sewage discharges into the environment from its treatment works.The regulator for the water and wastewater sector in England and Wales, Ofwat, says the company, which has 1.8 million customers in Cornwall, Devon, the Isles of Scilly and parts of Dorset and Somerset, is being sanctioned for dumping sewage in breach of its legal permit conditions.But there was anger over revelations on Thursday that the regulator had not imposed a direct fine on the company.South West Water put forward the suggestion that it would invest £20m to reduce sewage discharges at key storm overflows, spend £2m to tackle sewer misuse and misconnections, and another £2m to support local environment groups. This was accepted by Ofwat rather than imposing a fine of £19m.But Rob Abrams, the campaigns manager at Surfers Against Sewage, said allowing water companies to choose their own penalty was farcical.He said the situation “illustrates a water industry model that’s broken beyond repair, with government and regulators subservient to industry and its rampaging pursuit of profit, at any cost”.Ofwat said it had chosen this route rather than imposing a fine because it was satisfied that the company would carry out the work required to bring its infrastructure back into legal operation.“We have … concluded that it would be appropriate to accept the undertakings in lieu of the financial penalty we would otherwise impose in this case (£19m, 6.5% of its relevant turnover),” Ofwat said.The regulator carried out a two-year investigation into the company that found it had failed to upgrade its treatment works to prevent sewage discharges into the environment, failed to properly deal with the content of its sewers and failed to put in the resources to monitor its treatment works properly.The penalty is the latest in an ongoing investigation by Ofwat into several water companies into widespread illegal sewage dumping across the network from thousands of treatment plants.Penalties totalling more than £160m have already been imposed against Yorkshire Water, Thames Water and Northumbrian Water for widespread illegal sewage dumping from their treatment works.Lynn Parker, the senior director for enforcement at Ofwat, said the regulator had secured the £24m package and a commitment to put things right from the company.skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Business TodayGet set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morningPrivacy 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 promotionBut Abrams said it amounted to a cynical PR exercise and an abdication of responsibility by Ofwat.“There is no transparency about how the money will be spent or whether it’s even enough,” he said.“Of the £4m pledged for environmental initiatives and local groups, we’ve been given no clarity on who will benefit or why.”The public and other stakeholders can make representations about the size of the penalty before it is finalised.

States, enviro groups fight Trump plan to keep dirty power plants going

In late spring, the Department of Energy ordered two aging and costly fossil-fueled power plants that were on the verge of shutting down to stay open. The agency claimed that the moves were necessary to prevent the power grid from collapsing — and that it has the power to force the plants to stay open even if the…

In late spring, the Department of Energy ordered two aging and costly fossil-fueled power plants that were on the verge of shutting down to stay open. The agency claimed that the moves were necessary to prevent the power grid from collapsing — and that it has the power to force the plants to stay open even if the utilities, state regulators, and grid operators managing them say that no such emergency exists. But state regulators, regional grid operators, environmental groups, and consumer groups are pushing back on the notion that the grids in question even need these interventions — and are challenging the legality of the DOE’s stay-open orders. The DOE claimed that the threat of large-scale grid blackouts forced its hand. But state utility regulators, environmental groups, consumer advocates, and energy experts say that careful analysis from the plant’s owners, state regulators, regional grid operators, and grid reliability experts had determined both plants could be safely closed. These groups argue that clean energy, not fossil fuels, are the true solution to the country’s grid challenges — even if the ​“big, beautiful” bill signed by Trump last week will make those resources more expensive to build. Some of the environmental organizations challenging DOE’s orders have pledged to take their case to federal court if necessary. “We need to get more electrons on the grid. We need those to be clean, reliable, and affordable,” said Robert Routh, Pennsylvania climate and energy policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, one of the groups demanding that DOE reconsider its orders. Keeping J.H. Campbell and Eddystone open ​“results in the exact opposite. It’s costly, harmful, unnecessary, and unlawful.” Taking on the DOE’s grid emergency claims The groups challenging the DOE’s J.H. Campbell and Eddystone stay-open orders point out that the agency is using a power originally designed to protect the grid against unanticipated emergencies, including during wartime, but without proving that such an emergency is underway. “This authority that the Department of Energy is acting under — Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act — is a very tailored emergency authority,” said Caroline Reiser, NRDC senior attorney for climate and energy. ​“Congress intentionally wrote it only to be usable in specific, narrow, short-term emergencies. This is not that.” For decades, the DOE has used its Section 202(c) power sparingly, and only in response to requests from utilities or grid operators to waive federal air pollution regulations or other requirements in moments when the grid faces imminent threats like widespread power outages, Reiser said. But DOE’s orders for Eddystone and J.H. Campbell were not spurred by requests from state regulators or regional grid operators. In fact, the orders caught those parties by surprise. They also came mere days before the plants were set to close down and after years of effort to ensure their closure wouldn’t threaten grid reliability. J.H. Campbell was scheduled to close in May under a plan that has been in the works since 2021 as part of a broader agreement between utility Consumers Energy and state regulators, and which was approved by the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO), the entity that manages grid reliability across Michigan and 14 other states. “The plant is really old, unreliable, extremely polluting, and extremely expensive,” Reiser said. ​“Nobody is saying that this plant is needed or is going to be beneficial for any reliability purposes.” To justify its stay-open order, DOE cited reports from the North American Electric Reliability Corp. (NERC), a nonprofit regulatory authority that includes utilities and grid operators in the U.S. and Canada. NERC found MISO is at higher risk of summertime reliability problems than other U.S. grid regions, but environmental groups argue in their rehearing request that DOE has ​“misrepresented the reports on which it relies,” and that Consumers Energy, Michigan regulators, and MISO have collectively shown closing the plant won’t endanger grid reliability. Eddystone, which had operated only infrequently over the past few years, also went through a rigorous process with mid-Atlantic grid operator PJM Interconnection to ensure its closure wouldn’t harm grid reliability. The DOE’s reason for keeping that plant open is based on a report from PJM that states the grid operator might need to ask utility customers to use less power if it faces extreme conditions this summer — an even scantier justification than what the agency cited in its J.H. Campbell order, Reiser said. As long as the DOE continues to take the position that it can issue emergency stay-open orders to any power plant it decides to, these established methods for managing plant closures and fairly allocating costs will be thrown into disarray, she said. “We have a system of competitive energy markets in the United States that is successful in keeping the lights on and maintaining reliability the vast, vast majority of the time,” Reiser said. ​“The Department of Energy stepping in and using a command-and-control system interferes with those markets.”

Nanoplastics Make Up Most of the Ocean’s Plastic Pollution

Nanoplastics—particles smaller than a human hair—can pass through cell walls and enter the food web. New research suggest 27 million metric tons of nanoplastics are spread across just the top layer of the North Atlantic

Most Plastic in the Ocean Is Invisible—And DeadlyNanoplastics—particles smaller than a human hair—can pass through cell walls and enter the food web. New research suggest 27 million metric tons of nanoplastics are spread across just the top layer of the North AtlanticBy Katharine Sanderson & Nature magazine Sergi Escribano/Getty ImagesMarine plastic litter tends to grab headlines, with images of suffocating seabirds or bottles washing up along coastlines. Increasingly, researchers have been finding tiny microplastic fragments across all environments, from the most densely populated cities to pristine mountaintops, as well as in human tissue including the brain and placenta. A study published today reveals yet another hidden source of this deadly waste: nanometre-scale particles are literally everywhere, says co-author Dušan Materić, an environmental analytical chemist at the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research in Leipzig, Germany.Materić and his colleagues sampled water at three depths representative of different environments in the North Atlantic Ocean. Throughout the water column, they found three types of nanoplastic: polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polystyrene (PS) and polyvinylchloride (PVC). These were present at average concentrations of 18 milligrams per metre cubed, which translates to 27 million tonnes of nanoplastics spread across just the top layer of the temperate to subtropical North Atlantic. “Nanoplastics make up the dominant fraction of marine plastic pollution,” Materić says. In the entire world’s oceans, it is estimated that there are around 3 million tonnes of floating plastic pollution — excluding nanoplastics.What are plastic nanoparticles and how different are they from microplastics?On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.The tiniest of pieces of plastic, nanoplastics are defined by the researchers as having a diameter of less than one micrometre (one one-thousandth of a metre). Microplastics are between one micrometre and 5 millimetres across. At the smaller scale of nanoplastics, materials behave differently. Materić and his colleagues found that the particles were distributed throughout the water column, rather than settling to the bottom. The movement of the nanoplastic particles was dominated not by gravity, but by the random movement called Brownian motion, and by collisions with water molecules.How did the team find the nanoplastics?The scientists took water samples during a November 2020 cruise on research vessel Pelagia, which is owned by the Royal Netherlands Institute of Sea Research in Texel. They sampled at 12 locations: 5 in the system of circular currents called the North Atlantic subtropical gyre; 4 in the open ocean; and 3 from coastal areas on the European continental shelf. At each location, they gathered samples at depths of 10 metres and 1,000 metres below the surface, and then 30 metres off the ocean bottom.The nanoplastics were detected using a technology called thermal-desorption proton-transfer-reaction mass spectrometry. “We faced multiple challenges,” says Materić, including the need to remove contaminants other than nanoplastics. Each 10-millilitre sample was run through a filter with micrometre pores to clear out microplastics. Samples were then slowly heated, releasing any organic matter and allowing the remaining plastics to be identified.Not all was as expected. “We faced a big mystery,” says Materić. One major class of plastics, polyethylene (PE), was missing from the data, even though fragments almost certainly enter the ocean. The fragments probably transform into something else, or might fall to the sea bed, says Materić. “This suggests that PE nanoplastic cycling in the ocean environment follows some unusual pathway — either rapid chemical alteration or mineralization, or fast sinking.”Should we be surprised that nanoplastics are an overlooked source of plastics pollution? Should we be worried?“This does not come as a surprise to me, as I have been aware of the extent and magnitude of the problem for some time,” says Tony Walker, an environmental scientist at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada. “Nanoplastics, unlike microplastics, are able to pass through cell walls, meaning that they are already incorporated into the ocean phytoplankton which serve as the base of the marine food web and are able to be transferred through the marine food web,” he explains.The ubiquitousness of nanoplastics means they should be taken seriously, says Materić. “Given their toxicological potential, they may represent the most problematic plastic size fraction for ocean life,” he says. Walker agrees: “This should be a wake-up call to all of us,” he says. “The extent to which nanoplastics can infiltrate every ecosystem and living cell on the planet is even far worse than what we already know about microplastics and larger plastic pollution.”What can be done to mitigate the pollution?The next and likely final round of negotiations for a legally binding United Nations treaty on plastics pollution will kick off in August in Geneva, Switzerland. On the table is a limit on future plastic manufacture, but this is being resisted by some countries, including those that rely on oil and gas exports to power their economies.“One of the best strategies to mitigate future nanoplastics pollution or release into the environment is to cap plastic production,” says Walker. “Turn off the tap.”This article is reproduced with permission and was first published on July 9, 2025.

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.