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

Nearly 90 percent of EPA furloughed as government shuts down

About 89 percent of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) workforce is being furloughed as the government shuts down, according to contingency plans that were posted online this week. According to the plan, just 1,734 of the EPA’s 15,166 employees are slated to continue working during the shutdown, which began Wednesday. The plan also gives a window...

About 89 percent of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) workforce is being furloughed as the government shuts down, according to contingency plans that were posted online this week. According to the plan, just 1,734 of the EPA’s 15,166 employees are slated to continue working during the shutdown, which began Wednesday. The plan also gives a window into the degree of staffing losses at the EPA in recent months, as the agency had 17,080 employees at the start of the year.  During the furlough period, the agency will no longer carry out most civil inspections related to potential violations of environmental law.  It will also no longer conduct most of its research or issue new permits or grants. Some hazardous waste cleanup will be halted if there is no imminent threat to human health and property. The EPA will still continue emergency and disaster assistance, hazardous waste cleanup where there is an “imminent threat to human life" and criminal investigations. The Trump administration’s plan is similar to the most recent contingency plan issued by the Biden administration in September 2024. Under that plan, 1,734 employees out of 16,851 would have been expected to continue working. Under the Biden-era plan, civil inspections, issuance of new grants and permits, research and some hazardous waste cleanup also would have ceased. Marc Boom, a former EPA senior policy adviser during the Biden administration, said during a press call ahead of the shutdown that if one occurs “nobody will be holding polluters accountable for what they dump into the air we breathe and the water that we drink.” But Boom also said the Trump administration is making the problem worse. “Over the past 9 months, the White House and EPA leadership have already been shutting down the agency from within,” he said. “They've clawed back hundreds of community grants, rolled back protections against forever chemicals and pesticides, relaxed enforcement for polluters … and they've shuttered key programs like the Environmental Justice Office, the Office of Atmospheric Protection and now, they're closing down EPA's scientific backbone, the Office of Research and Development.” The EPA has said that its actions are in support of a deregulatory agenda that seeks to boost the U.S. economy.

We're precipitating an extermination rather than an extinction event'

Broadcaster and campaigner Chris Packham is on a mission to cut overconsumption, take on fossil fuel giants and create a fairer world

Wildlife broadcaster Chris Packham’s kinship with the natural world began before he could even speak. As a young child in his parents’ small back garden in Southampton, UK, he became fascinated with tadpoles, snails and ladybirds. Soon his bedroom filled up with jam jars and tanks, and then the garden was crammed with enclosures. His obsessive interests expanded from moths and newts to include foxes and kestrels. Packham puts this intense curiosity down in part to being autistic. He says this shaped his keen ability to focus and find patterns – and his need to shelter from overwhelming social interactions. On and off screen, Packham isn’t afraid to speak his mind. He is a vocal supporter of environmental issues and animal rights, with campaigns aiming to put an end to game shooting and industrial farming. This has won him no shortage of enemies. In 2019, dead crows and a fox were left hanging on his gatepost, along with a death threat; a couple of years later a Land Rover was blown up outside his house. But these attacks have only made Packham more resolute in trying to persuade other people that we already have the solution to save the natural world. New Scientist spoke to him about his latest campaign to end fossil fuel advertising and sponsorship in the UK, his upcoming TV series about evolution and how we can achieve a sustainable future on Earth. Thomas Lewton: Whenever I watch the BBC’s Springwatch, it is clear you have a deep connection with the natural world. Does being autistic help you to form this connection? Chris Packham: I think I was drawn to studying the natural world because of my ability to see things in great detail very rapidly and remember them. I have always found it easier to identify behaviours, or elucidate patterns of anatomy, physiology or whatever it happened to be. That curiosity about the natural world seemed to have been there almost inherently. My father was a marine engineer and my mother was a legal secretary, so the interest didn’t originate from them, but they certainly helped fuel it. Walking in the woods is one thing people can do that doesn’t require overconsumptionKevin Britland / Alamy Stock Photo I was an avid collector of living animals as a child. There were always things in jam jars and tanks in my bedroom. But when I got to about 12, my father bought me some binoculars. From that point onwards, I became less interested in keeping animals and more interested in watching them out in the wild. I had an obsessive interest in natural history, and it would ricochet from one species or group of species to another. I suppose we call it “focused interest” now, but I’ll stick with obsession. The more you can focus on a singular task or objective, the easier it is to exclude distractions. And then you tend to get to the bottom of what you’re trying to understand. That’s what excites your curiosity. Those are incredible abilities. Being neurodivergent can, of course, also be challenging. How would you encourage others who are autistic or who have other forms of neurodivergence to think about how they experience the world? It’s about focusing on the opportunities and attributes that you might have rather than just the challenges and difficulties and embracing where that takes you. When I was a kid, I thought I was drawn to the woods by all those things that I wanted to see or catch at the time. But in reality, I was finding solace and respite there because I wasn’t being judged by my peers. I felt very comfortable there. I found I could totally immerse myself in the experience. Many people can identify a tree by its shape, or by its leaves, or by the pattern on its bark. But I can identify trees by the sound that rain makes on their leaves if I’m sitting underneath them with my eyes closed. That’s not a tremendous skill. Anyone could learn that. But that’s the sort of degree that I want to engage with nature. You have dedicated much of your life to protecting nature. Why do you think you have faced a backlash to this activism? Like many other people, I’m asking a significant part of the population to change its mind and habits a bit more quickly than feels comfortable. Humans, as we know, are remarkable animals. We’re intelligent, adaptable, creative, imaginative, innovative. We’re brilliant in many ways – but we’re not very good at changing our minds. We are burning through Earth’s natural resourcesJim West / Alamy Stock Photo But at this point it’s very clear that unless we do change our minds and therefore our practices, we’re going to be in even deeper trouble than we are already in. I try to [point out] that there are opportunities to deal with these problems. Let’s take them while there’s still a chance to do good and find positive outcomes. A section of society is reluctant to do that. And a tiny minority will push back in an aggressive and violent way. What keeps you going in the face of this violence? I genuinely don’t care. I’m a very determined person. I can’t be swayed from a course of action if I believe it’s the right course of action. I’ve never picked a fight because I thought I could win it. I’ve always picked my fights because I thought they were the right fights to pick at the time. Winning isn’t about crossing a line or getting a medal; winning is about not giving up. At this point in time, that is the thing that you know people of my ilk – activists, campaigners, protesters – need to hold closest to their hearts. It’s very difficult at the moment. It’s very, very difficult. In what way? We’re being persecuted, you know, through an unjust legal system in terms of public protest in the UK. If we want to protest today we just don’t know where we stand. We don’t know if we will be arrested for wearing a T shirt, holding a placard or banner. We’re up against the terrible things which are happening in the US and other parts of the world when it comes to rolling back environmental protections, legislation and, indeed, environmental sciences. Ultimately, though, I still think we are a wonderful species. We have the tools, technology and abilities at our disposal to make sure that we can adapt to the problems we’ve already generated. It’s just that we don’t have anyone out there with the gumption to roll them out broadly enough and rapidly enough to make a difference. So, I’ve got to help drive that. You recently launched a petition to end fossil fuel advertising and sponsorship in the UK. Is this a major barrier to action on climate change? Well, in the UK, fossil fuel companies actually don’t spend too much money on advertising in the grand scheme of things, but they spend it in a very targeted way: they target decision-makers and politicians and others. People are being manipulated by mistruths. But what we are increasingly seeing is billions of pounds being poured into sports sponsorship [by fossil fuel companies]. It subliminally ekes its way into people’s lives, and they see those companies as doing something advantageous. It’s normalising their business. Protesters fighting Shell’s sponsorship of British CyclingAndrea Domeniconi/Alamy Live News Their business has no right to be normal any more. It’s destroying our planet. There’s no ambiguity about it. We need to stop them being able to greenwash their dirty linen in public through that sort of sponsorship. I mean, the idea that British Cycling is sponsored by Shell is like a bad joke. Cycling, something we do that is healthy, which combats carbon emissions. As is, I have to say, the continued acceptance of fossil sponsorship within some of our public institutions like the Science Museum and the British Museum, it shouldn’t be allowed. What does a sustainable future look like to you? It’s very difficult, obviously, to look into a crystal ball, given advances in technology and now the very rapid advances that we see in climate breakdown. But what I think we need is a change in mindset. Firstly, everyone goes on about economic growth. But growth comes at the cost of consumption, and we live on a finite planet. So, quite clearly, we cannot continue to grow if we’re using all those resources in an unsustainable way. “ I’m asking a significant part of the population to change its mind and habits “ People need to rethink what they want out of life. Does that consumption really make us happy? What are the rewards that we get out of life? Whether you’re into walking in the woods, whether you’re interested in art, singing, dance or whatever it happens to be that excites you in life, it doesn’t have to come at the cost of accumulating loads of stuff. What other shifts in mindset are needed? Do you think people should consider not having kids as part of achieving a sustainable population? We have to be very careful when we’re talking about overpopulation. Obviously, the more people on the planet, the more consumption takes place. The question is, of course, who’s consuming it? And in many parts of the world, where populations are growing most rapidly, that isn’t where consumption is the greatest. If everyone on Earth consumed resources at the same rate as people in the US, then we would need about five Earths to sustain this demand. We can only consume so much because of the resource poverty of other people in the world who are underusing the world’s available resources. I’m a very firm believer that when it comes to addressing climate breakdown, we must move towards a far greater degree of equality. One of the most embarrassing things about the COP climate summit is that leaders fail to agree to significantly subsidise poorer countries in the world who are suffering most from climate breakdown. It’s that sort of pervasive greed which is the handicap. On another note, you are finishing filming a BBC TV series about evolution, which is coming out next year. Evolution takes place over innumerable generations, billions of years. What can humans learn from that deep-time perspective about their place within nature? Well, firstly, how lucky we are to be here. Mutations happen unpredictably. And the fact that they occur in a place where they can actually succeed is quite odd. I mean, the chances of human life evolving are infinitesimally small. And very often evolution comes down to serendipity. Secondly, evolution gives us perspective on the damage humans are inflicting on the natural world now. We look at a number of mass extinction events in the series, and they aren’t always catastrophic. You know, a meteorite takes out all the dinosaurs, which was a disaster for the dinosaurs, but hey, we mammals had a great time in the aftermath. All of those niches that were previously unavailable, mammals evolved to fill them. So, at the moment, we’re precipitating an extermination rather than an extinction event, since it’s us that’s driving it – and we need to get our language right. But whatever we do to the planet, life’s tenacity will mean that it will survive and, you know, it will be beautiful, maybe even more beautiful all over again.

What is fracking and why is it controversial?

The government says it plans to pass legislation to permanently ban fracking for shale gas in England.

What is fracking and why is it controversial?Esme StallardClimate and science reporter, BBC NewsGetty ImagesThe government says it plans to pass legislation to permanently ban fracking for shale gas in England.A moratorium on the practice was put in place by the last government but the debate has been reopened in recent weeks after the political party Reform committed to backing fracking if it came to power.The Scottish and Welsh governments continue to remain opposed to the practise. What is fracking?Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is a technique for recovering gas and oil from shale rock. It involves drilling into the earth and directing a high-pressure mixture of water, sand and chemicals at a rock layer, to release the gas inside.Wells can be drilled vertically or horizontally in order to release the gas.Why is fracking controversial?The injection of fluid at high pressure into the rock can cause earth tremors - small movements in the earth's surface.In 2019, more than 120 tremors were recorded during drilling at a Cuadrilla site in Blackpool.Seismic events of this scale are considered minor and are rarely felt by people, but they are a concern to local residents.Shale gas is also a fossil fuel, and campaigners say allowing fracking could distract energy firms and governments from investing in renewable and green sources of energy.Fracking also uses huge amounts of water, which must be transported to the site at significant environmental cost.What has the government said about fracking?Government policy on fracking has see-sawed over recent years. Former Prime Minister Liz Truss looked to reintroduce the practice, despite local opposition - but this was subsequently reversed by Rishi Sunak who introduced a moratorium.In October 2025, at the Labour Party Conference, Energy Secretary Ed Miliband said the government would move to legislate against fracking, banning the practice permanently. This follows a commitment made by the Labour Party in its manifesto and further commitments by PM Sir Keir Starmer in September that the practice would be "banned for good".But Reform has said it would seek to allow the practice should it be elected, as part of its "war" on renewable developers.In his speech at the conference, Miliband said the practice was: "Dangerous and deeply harmful to our natural environment."The good news is that communities have fought back and won this fight before and will do so again," he added.ReutersAn anti-fracking protester writes messages on a wall in LancashireWhere has fracking taken place in the UK?Fracking for shale gas in the UK has only previously taken place on a small scale, due to the many public and legal challenges.However, exploration has identified large swathes of shale gas across the UK, particularly in northern England.More than 100 exploration and drilling licences were awarded to firms including Third Energy, IGas, Aurora Energy Resources and Ineos.Cuadrilla was the only company given consent to begin fracking.It drilled two wells at a site in Lancashire but faced repeated protests from local people and campaigners.In 2022, the Oil and Gas Authority told Cuadrilla to permanently concrete and abandon the wells.Could fracking lower energy bills?The UK can only meet 48% of its gas demand from domestic supplies (this would be 54% if it did not export any gas).Some MPs have claimed that restarting drilling at Cuadrilla's two existing wells could be done quickly, and would provide significant supplies.Cuadrilla claimed that "just 10%" of the gas from shale deposits in Lancashire and surrounding areas "could supply 50 years' worth of current UK gas demand".Energy experts dispute this, pointing out that the UK's shale gas reserves are held in complex layers of rock.Mike Bradshaw, professor of global energy at Warwick University, says estimates of how much shale gas the UK has are not the same as the amount of gas that could be produced commercially.But Prof Geoffrey Maitland, professor of Energy Engineering at Imperial College London, has said fracking could provide interim relief."Although shale gas will not provide an immediate solution to the energy security of the country, it could be used in the medium term to replace diminishing North Sea gas production and some gas imports," he said.Which other countries use fracking?It is thought that fracking has given energy security to the US and Canada for the next 100 years, and has presented an opportunity to generate electricity at half the CO2 emissions of coal.But the complex geology of the UK and the higher density of people makes extraction more challenging, according to experts.Fracking remains banned in numerous EU countries, including Germany, France and Spain, as well as Australia.Authorities in countries including Brazil and Argentina are split, with some banning the practice, and others allowing operations.

Engineered Microbes Pull Critical Minerals from Mining Waste

Biomining uses engineered microbes to harvest critical minerals

October 1, 20255 min readMeet the Microbes That Munch Mountains of Mining WasteBiomining uses engineered microbes to harvest critical mineralsBy Vanessa Bates Ramirez edited by Sarah Lewin FrasierEscondida Mine, located in Chile’s Atacama Desert. The copper-bearing waste is poured into the impoundment area as a liquid (green region at image center) and dries to the lighter tan and gray color. Science History Images/Alamy Stock PhotoAt the northern edge of Chile’s Atacama Desert sits a pile of rocks that’s so big that you can see it from space—and it’s teeming with invisible activity. Billions of microbes are hard at work dissolving compounds in this giant mound of crushed ore from Escondida, the biggest copper mine on the planet.“Microbes are the world’s oldest miners,” says Liz Dennett, founder and CEO of the start-up Endolith Mining, based near Denver, Colo. “They’ve had billions of years to become incredibly good at eating rocks.”Scientists at Endolith and elsewhere are engineering microbes to get even better at this process, called biomining—to work faster, extract more copper and even pull out other kinds of minerals. Endolith tests different microbes to see which are most fit for the job and then exposes them to harsh conditions to further strengthen them. “Think of it like a superhero training camp,” Dennett says. In May the company’s engineered microbes demonstrated copper extraction superior to microbes found in nature; its first field deployments are scheduled for later this year.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.Biomining, if it can be scaled up, could make it possible to decrease reliance on global supply chains, which are becoming ever more fragile. “If we can make biomining work, we can break the monopoly that states like China have on critical metals,” says Buz Barstow, a biological and environmental engineer at Cornell University. Barstow is leading a project called the Microbe-Mineral Atlas that catalogs microorganisms, their genes and how they interact with minerals. The project’s goal is to build genetically engineered microorganisms that can effectively mine critical metals.As many countries transition to renewable energy, they will require fewer fossil fuels but more minerals such as lithium, cobalt, copper, nickel and zinc. These are not only needed for wind turbines, solar panels and batteries; they’re also crucial for the laptops and cell phones we use every day. Copper demand, in particular, is set to skyrocket. Forecasts show we’ll need more copper in the next 30 years than has been mined throughout all of history. Much of the low-hanging fruit—that is, high-grade ore—has been picked, and mines have to work a lot harder than before to get the same quantity.Trucks hauling earth from Escondida.Cavan Images/Alamy Stock PhotoConventional mining techniques are resource-intensive, expensive and harmful to the environment. After using explosives and heavy machinery to extract ore from the earth, mining companies must isolate and purify the minerals in question. Often, that means breaking chemical bonds that keep minerals bound to sulfur in sulfide ores. This is most commonly done using heat through a process called smelting or acid through a process called leaching. Smelting requires extremely high temperatures, reached by burning fossil fuels or using a lot of electricity. On top of the carbon dioxide emissions this generates, burning sulfur produces toxic sulfur dioxide gas. Acid leaching, meanwhile, carries the risk of acid mine drainage, where fluids contaminate rivers or groundwater and harm the surrounding ecosystem. The sulfuric acid used for this process can cause harm before it even reaches mines. “Production of sulfuric acid is very nasty,” Dennett says. “There’s a lot of secondary and tertiary effects on the environment.”Microbes can do the same work as heat and acid, but their cost and environmental impact are much lower. “Microbes use at least six different mechanisms for biomining,” Barstow says. The most common is an oxidation-reduction reaction, or redox reaction, in which microbes break the chemical bonds in a sulfide ore by “eating” their sulfur and iron. This releases the minerals in the ore, breaking them down until they can dissolve in water. The mineral-rich solution is collected in a pond after it is drained from the rock and is then exposed to solvents and electricity that attract the minerals like a magnet while leaving water, acid and impurities behind.The microbes still need a small amount of sulfuric acid to kick-start the process of breaking down the ore. Piles of rock such as the one at Chile’s Escondida mine—called heap leaches—are sprayed with an acid-water mixture that only needs to be added once because microbes make more acid naturally as they break the ore’s chemical bonds. “Replacing [most] sulfuric acid is a big economic benefit, as it can often be the largest operating expense for a mine,” says Sasha Milshteyn, founder of Transition Biomining, a company that analyzes the DNA of microbes found in ores to develop custom additives for increased copper recovery.Though the process avoids toxic gas emissions, uses less energy and water than conventional methods and minimizes hazardous chemicals, it has its limitations. It’s slower than traditional mining: while smelting can take hours to days, and acid leaching takes days to weeks, microbes do their work over several months. They’re sensitive to pH, temperature, and moisture levels and can be killed off or slowed down by changes in any of these. And they still produce acidic solutions that need to be contained and treated. As Barstow puts it, “Biomining won’t be an environmental panacea; it will just be quite a bit better than what we do now.”The real promise of biomining is that it can squeeze more out of rocks than conventional methods do. “Modern mining technologies ‘skim the cream’ of economically valuable metals from a deposit and leave everything else behind in [waste rock called] tailings,” Barstow says.That waste is worth far more than it usually gets credit for. A study recently published in Science found that recovering the minerals in waste from existing U.S. mines could meet nearly all of the country’s critical mineral needs; recovering just 1 percent would substantially reduce import reliance for many elements. “If large mines just added additional recovery circuits to their process, this could bring needed minerals into production relatively quickly,” says the study’s lead author Elizabeth Holley, a mining engineer at the Colorado School of Mines.Copper mine waste can hold bits of tellurium, cobalt or zinc; coal ash can contain lithium, manganese and rare earth elements. The quantities are too small for conventional mines to bother with, but they’re not too small for microbes. Besides being used in heap leaches or pumped straight into the ground, microbes can be applied directly to waste streams, where they can pull out tiny amounts of minerals that can add up to be significant.Microbes may be the world’s oldest miners, but biomining as a technology is still new, Milshteyn notes, and doesn’t yet leverage the full complexity of microbial ecosystems. “The heaps that perform best in the field have thriving ecosystems of diverse microbes working together,” he says. “I think the next generation of biomining has to contend with that complexity.”It’s Time to Stand Up for ScienceIf you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Team Trump Will Spend $625 Million and Open Public Lands to Revive a Dying Industry

This story was originally published by Guardian and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. The White House will open 13.1 million acres of public land to coal mining while providing $625 million for coal-fired power plants, the Trump administration has announced. The efforts came as part of a suite of initiatives from the Department of the […]

This story was originally published by Guardian and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. The White House will open 13.1 million acres of public land to coal mining while providing $625 million for coal-fired power plants, the Trump administration has announced. The efforts came as part of a suite of initiatives from the Department of the Interior, Department of Energy, and Environmental Protection Agency, aimed at reviving the flagging coal sector. Coal, the most polluting and costly fossil fuel, has been on a rapid decline over the past 30 years, with the US halving its production between 2008 and 2023, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA). “This is an industry that matters to our country,” Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in a livestreamed press conference on Monday morning, alongside representatives from the other two departments. “It matters to the world, and it’s going to continue to matter for a long time.” “This is a colossal waste of our money at a time when the federal government should be spurring along the new energy sources.” Coal plants provided about 15 percent of US electricity in 2024—a steep fall from 50 percent in 2000—the EIA found, with the growth of gas and green power displacing its use. Last year, wind and solar produced more electricity than coal in the US for the first time in history, according to the International Energy Agency, which predicts that could happen at the global level by the end of 2026. Despite its dwindling role, Trump has made the reviving the coal sector a priority of his second term amid increasing energy demand due to the proliferation of artificial intelligence data centers. “The Trump administration is hell-bent on supporting the oldest, dirtiest energy source. It’s handing our hard-earned tax dollars over to the owners of coal plants that cost more to run than new, clean energy,” said Amanda Levin, director of policy analysis at the national environmental nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council. “This is a colossal waste of our money at a time when the federal government should be spurring along the new energy sources that can power the AI boom and help bring down electricity bills for struggling families.” The administration’s new $625 million investment includes $350 million to “modernize” coal plants, $175 million for coal projects it claims will provide affordable and reliable energy to rural communities, and $50 million to upgrade wastewater management systems to extend the lifespan of coal plants. The efforts follow previous coal-focused initiatives from the Trump administration, which has greenlit mining leases while fast-tracking mining permits. It has also prolonged the life of some coal plants, exempted some coal plants from EPA rules, and falsely claimed that emissions from those plants are “not significant.” The moves have sparked outrage from environmental advocates who note that coal pollution has been linked to hundreds of thousands of deaths across the past two decades. One study estimated that emissions from coal costs Americans $13-$26 billion a year in additional ER visits, strokes and cardiac events, and a greater prevalence and severity of childhood asthma events.

Air Pollution Worsens Sleep Apnea

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterWEDNESDAY, Oct. 1, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Air pollution could be making matters worse for people with sleep...

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterWEDNESDAY, Oct. 1, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Air pollution could be making matters worse for people with sleep apnea, according to a new study.Sleep apnea patients have more episodes of reduced or stopped breathing during their slumber in areas with heavier air pollution, researchers reported Tuesday at an European Respiratory Society meeting in Amsterdam.Further, these sleep apnea episodes increased as air became more polluted, researchers found.“We confirmed a statistically significant positive association between average long-term exposure to air pollution, specifically fine particles known as PM10, and the severity of obstructive sleep apnea,” researcher Martino Pengo, an associate professor from the University of Milano-Bicocca in Italy, said in a news release.PM10 particles are less than 10 micrometers in diameter, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. By comparison, a human hair is 50 to 70 micrometers wide.People with sleep apnea snore loudly and their breathing starts and stops during the night, disturbing their sleep. The condition is known to increase risk of high blood pressure, stroke, heart disease and type 2 diabetes, according to the Mayo Clinic.For the study, researchers tracked more than 19,000 patients with sleep apnea from 25 cities in 14 countries. The team compared the patients’ apnea data from sleep studies with records of particle pollution in the air where they live.Results showed that the number of respiratory events — breathing slowing or stopping — per hour of sleep increased by 0.41 for every one-unit increase in PM10 particle pollution.“This effect may seem small for an individual, but across entire populations it can shift many people into higher-severity categories, making it meaningful from a public health perspective,” Pengo said.Researchers also found the link between particle pollution and sleep apnea varied in strength between cities. People in Lisbon, Paris and Athens were more affected by air pollution.“In some cities, the impact was stronger; in others, it was weaker or even absent,” Pengo said. “These regional differences might be due to things like local climate, the type of pollution or even how health care systems detect obstructive sleep apnea.”Sophia Schiza, head of the European Respiratory Society’s expert group on sleep disordered breathing, said that “for people with obstructive sleep apnea, especially those living in cities with high levels of air pollution, this study is important as it suggests pollution could be making their condition worse.”The study strengthens the connection between environmental health and sleep medicine, added Schiza, a professor of pulmonology at the University of Crete in Greece who was not involved in the research. “It reminds us that tackling air pollution isn't just good for the planet, it's also vital for our lungs and our sleep quality too,” she said in a news release.Findings presented at medical meetings should be considered preliminary until published in a peer-reviewed journal.SOURCE: European Respiratory Society, news release, Sept. 30, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Government shutdown means 90% of EPA staff won't be working

The EPA will pause research work, grants, permits and inspections while the government is shut down. Nearly all staff will stop working. Some may not be rehired.

The shutdown of the U.S. government could have ripple effects for human health and the environment as an already weakened Environmental Protection Agency will see nearly all of its staff furloughed and many of its operations paused. The first shutdown in six years went into effect late Tuesday and requires federal agencies to stop all nonessential work. Most EPA work is considered only partially essential under federal rules. Nearly 90% of EPA staff will be furloughed; only 1,732 of 15,166 employees will report to work, according to the agency’s most recent shutdown contingency plan, issued in September.Immediate environmental hazard work is likely to continue, but longer-term efforts such as research, permitting, writing new rules and pollution enforcement will largely freeze. Experts note that the shutdown comes as the agency already has seen significant cuts as part of the Trump administration’s efforts to restructure the federal government and save taxpayers money. About 4,000 EPA employees, or a quarter of its workforce, have been fired or have taken a buyout this year. “The shutdown has already been happening for months,” said Marc Boom, a former senior policy advisor with the EPA who now serves as senior advisor with the Environmental Protection Network, a bipartisan group of more than 700 former EPA employees based in Washington, D.C.Many activities will halt, including research and the publication of research results, and the issuance of new grants, contracts and permits, according to the agency. Critically, civil enforcement inspections — on-site visits to facilities to check their compliance with environmental regulations — will also cease. Whether cleanup work at hazardous waste areas known as Superfund sites will continue will be decided case by case. At sites where stopping would pose an imminent threat to human life, work will continue, but at others, it will pause, according to the agency.Preparing for, preventing and responding to environmental disasters such as oil spills and chemical releases, known as emergency response readiness operations, will not stop. Freezers, animals, plants and other assets in research labs will continue to be maintained. In a statement to The Times before the shutdown, EPA officials blamed Democrats for the quagmire and said the agency will continue to strive to meet its mission. The impasse came as Democrats demanded healthcare provisions in the budget while Republicans pushed for a short-term budget extension without policy changes.“Congressional Democrats are not only unwilling to vote for a clean funding bill, but their goal is to inflict as much pain on the American people as possible,” the EPA said. “Americans made their voices heard last November; Democrats must respect the will of the people. ... EPA will work to fulfill our statutory obligations, emergency response efforts, and Administration priorities.” But the agency has already lost considerable expertise through its staff cuts and restructuring, which have lessened its ability to respond to both emerging and existing threats, according to Linda Birnbaum, former director of the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences and the National Toxicology Program. “The additional loss of people will essentially take us to a point where EPA will be almost unable to complete its mission,” Birnbaum said in a statement. Since Trump took office in January, the EPA has canceled hundreds of environmental grants; rolled back protections against pesticides, forever chemicals and fossil fuel emissions; issued exemptions for large polluters, eliminated its office of Research and Development and announced plans to repeal the endangerment finding, which affirms that greenhouse gases are harmful to human health and the environment, among other efforts.The furloughs at EPA could become permanent. A recent memo from the federal Office of Management and Budget directed federal agencies to prepare for mass layoffs in the event of a government shutdown, implying people may not be rehired.“If you’ve already cut the staff by 4,000 and more is to come from the shutdown and from further [reductions in force], then there will be even less protections,” said Vicki Arroyo, a former EPA associate administrator for policy who served under both the Biden and Reagan administrations. Arroyo recalled the challenges of maintaining the agency’s core functions during the last federal shutdown six years ago, when she was the only one of about 160 people on her team who remained at work. Duties such as economic analyses, permitting for energy projects such as offshore wind and National Environmental Policy Act reviews were among those to suffer, she said, and could be hit even harder this time around.“When EPA funding and staffing are undercut, it doesn’t just hurt these public servants, it hurts us all,” Arroyo said. “Without a functioning EPA, we can’t trust that the water out of our tap is safe ... and without EPA staff on duty, we can’t rely on EPA to monitor and protect air quality so that children without asthma and others with respiratory conditions are safe from pollution.” She and other experts also feared that less support and oversight from the federal government would result in diminished quality control at the local level, as many federal laws are delegated to states. In California, much will depend on the length of the shutdown, according to H.D. Palmer, spokesman for the California Department of Finance. A shutdown lasting only a few days would probably have minimal effect on the California EPA.Specifically, Palmer said many California environmental programs that were funded under the Biden administration should be able to continue even if there is a brief lapse in appropriations, such as brownfield project grants and the state’s Clean Water State Revolving Fund. However, a protracted shutdown could lead to delays in new project grants or permits being issued.“We’re going to continue to assess it depending on how long this thing goes on,” Palmer said. The EPA is not the only environmental agency that will face challenges. The U.S. Forest Service, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Park Service are also bracing for interruptions under the shutdown in addition to cuts this year.

Op-ed: Let’s Preserve Our Communities Through Canning Food

“Anything you want cooked, I can cook. I can cook dirt,” jokes David, who has operated this community cannery for the last 30 years, guiding his neighbors through the steps of preserving their own food—from cooking the raw ingredients to sealing them into jars. Known as the “Moonshine Capital of the World” for its distilled […] The post Op-ed: Let’s Preserve Our Communities Through Canning Food appeared first on Civil Eats.

Set in the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia, surrounded by rolling farmlands and hardwood forests, Glade Hill Cannery often opens before the sun has risen. On one such early morning, expert canner Ronald David supervises the pots of apple butter that bubble on the stoves, fogging the windows with steam. “Anything you want cooked, I can cook. I can cook dirt,” jokes David, who has operated this community cannery for the last 30 years, guiding his neighbors through the steps of preserving their own food—from cooking the raw ingredients to sealing them into jars. Known as the “Moonshine Capital of the World” for its distilled alcohol production during Prohibition, Franklin County, Virginia, has a robust agriculture economy as well. Glade Hill stands as one of the oldest surviving canneries in the country, with more than 80 years of preserving, jarring, and steaming under its belt. The cannery operates in a 1940s-era masonry building behind Glade Hill Elementary School, and allows locals to can just about anything they want—though so far no one has taken David up on his dirt offer. Master canner Ronald David has worked at Glade Hill Cannery since the 1990s. (Photo credit: Rinne Allen)
 A community cannery is essentially a shared, public-access kitchen with commercial-grade equipment where anyone can process raw produce into shelf-stable goods. Commonly canned items include tomatoes, green beans, peaches, jams, pickles, and sauces. Across the U.S., the scale of community canneries ranges widely, from those operating out of small school kitchens to those that are industrial-size, like Glade Hill. Growing up in California’s Napa Valley, I was surrounded by examples of people enjoying fresh, homegrown food. One of my earliest memories is of learning to weed my dad’s backyard garden and helping him relocate snails. (I recall being more interested in befriending the creatures than moving them.) In addition to having a green thumb, my dad is an avid canner, meaning I have a year-round supply of jams, sauces, and stocks labeled with names like “Summer Lovin” and “Magic Mineral Broth” in his blocky uppercase handwriting. In an era when we often purchase food grown halfway across the world, community canneries are hanging on, allowing people to eat from sources closer to home. Canneries reduce reliance on industrial agriculture, help mitigate climate change, support small-scale farmers, build food sovereignty, and foster a sense of community where knowledge, recipes, and harvests can be shared. We need more of them. How Community Canneries Work Community canneries emerged alongside World War II victory gardens as a way for amateur gardeners to grow and preserve their own produce. A nationwide campaign sponsored by the U.S. government, the canneries were part of an effort to prevent food shortages and send more food overseas to American soldiers stationed there. The response was overwhelmingly positive: Canning peaked in 1943, with individuals producing over 4.1 billion jars of food in their homes and at community canning centers. As food processing industrialized, however, the number of community canneries dwindled from more than 3,800 facilities across the United States to fewer than a couple hundred. Steamed spinach, ready for canning at Glade Hill. (Photo credit: Rinne Allen)
 Canning centers have always been vital spaces for strengthening social bonds, reducing food waste, and increasing food security for rural farmers. David recalls whole church congregations coming together to make apple butter and neighbors canning food to raise money for buildings or first responders—an inseparable blend of love, community, and food. Every cannery functions differently, but at Glade Hill, work sometimes starts at 5 a.m. Hustling between pressure canners, 50-gallon kettles, and tin cans stacked on worktables, David says he helps up to 30 people each day cook down produce and seal jars, doling out advice along the way—and always leaving time for neighborly conversation. At any given time, the room may smell like sweet apples and cinnamon or savory, smoky slow-cooked pork with paprika. Putting Excess Produce to Good Use Skeptics may argue that community canneries don’t address the most pressing issues associated with local food movements, particularly access to fresh produce in low-income communities. But even so, canning has a number of environmental and social benefits that make it well worth the effort. First, it enables people to more easily preserve food from their own gardens and the farmers in their communities, making them less reliant on industrial agriculture—a major contributor to environmental destruction, responsible for approximately 80 percent of global deforestation and over 70 percent of terrestrial biodiversity loss. Additionally, preserving food offers a practical way to reduce the 30 to 40 percent of the U.S. food supply that is wasted each year, according to estimates from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Beyond the carbon dioxide released during its production, transport, and processing, food is the single largest category of material found in most landfills, where it breaks down and releases methane, another potent greenhouse gas. Diverting food from the landfill through canning helps mitigate this. Canneries can help improve food access in their communities as well. They can partner with local farms, community gardens, food banks, and other organizations to preserve excess produce and distribute it. The Baxter Community Center in Grand Rapids, Michigan, for example, provides fresh produce, garden space, and canning workshops to community members at no cost to promote both local food production and preservation. At Glade Hill Cannery, cans of beans with chunks of hog jowl await their turn in the water bath. (Photo credit: Rinne Allen) Canneries can also play a role in increasing self-reliance for small farmers. They can help farmers convert unsold produce into value-added products such as jams, sauces, or pickles, reducing waste and generating alternate streams of income. Some community canneries, like Glade Hill, allow farmers to drop off produce for processing and pick it up later. By enabling individuals and communities to assume greater control over what they eat, community canning also weakens relationships of dependency and helps increase food sovereignty, a concept that Monica M. White, an associate professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, explores in her research on D-Town Farm in Detroit. This can be especially important for marginalized communities. The Oneida Community Cannery in Oneida County, Wisconsin, for example, was established in the ’70s to help tribal and local community members reconnect with and learn to preserve traditional foods. The cannery’s success eventually led to the creation of a program to encourage self-reliance within the community, demonstrating that canning can be a tool for cultural preservation and community resilience. Lastly, canning builds community. Some of my fondest childhood memories are of being in the kitchen with my dad, learning to create his famous meatballs. Those moments weren’t just about the meal; they were about love, patience, and care. Community canneries provide the same opportunity: spaces to share recipes, preserve culinary traditions, and learn from other generations. Be a Community Canneries Advocate Community canning creates all kinds of benefits. It builds relationships, encourages people to grow and preserve their own food, and gives us healthy options to the processed foods so prevalent today. So how can you support it? Most community canneries operate as nonprofit organizations or are funded by local governments, supporting themselves through a combination of usage fees or public funding. Each one is unique, but they typically charge small fees based on hourly use of equipment, per batch or pounds processed, or through annual memberships. Prepping late-season tomatoes for canning at Glade Hill Cannery. (Photo credit: Rinne Allen) If possible, support a cannery near you. Virginia, Florida, and Georgia remain strongholds for community canneries, offering myriad models. Virginia alone has up to 11 seasonally operating community canneries, including Glade Hill. The Carroll County Cannery, for example, is open June through December, offering equipment and an on-site cannery specialist to help select recipes, acquire ingredients, and guide day-of canning. If you don’t have a cannery nearby, advocate for one. Most canneries are funded by local governments. Public investment increases their accessibility, keeping usage fees low. If you are interested in getting a cannery established in your area, attend city council meetings and make the case for these establishments. You might also consider working to establish a cannery within your local school district, to educate children on the importance of local food. The Eastanollee Cannery in Eastanollee, Georgia, for example, is owned by the Stephens County school system and focuses on both how to safely can food and increase engagement with local farmers. There’s something truly powerful about preparing food together. David tells me he’s formed friendships with many of the people who visit Glade Hill, often receiving a jar of apple butter as a thank-you gift. He and his regulars take care of each other. And that’s the essence of community canneries. Regardless of whether you have two cans to fill or 100, David says, “Come on in. I’ll make room for ya.” Jillian Fischer wrote this opinion as an undergraduate student in Liz Carlisle’s course, “Food, Agriculture, and the Environment,” offered this spring at the University of California Santa Barbara. Civil Eats partnered with Carlisle on writing and editing guidance for this story. The post Op-ed: Let’s Preserve Our Communities Through Canning Food appeared first on Civil Eats.

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.