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.

Accept Deny

GoGreenNation News

Learn more about the issues presented in our films
Show Filters

Ancient Greeks and Romans knew harming the environment could change the climate

They worried deeply about the impact climate change would have on us as individuals, and on broader society.

Universal History Archive / Contributor/GettyHumans have known about, thought about and worried about climate change for millennia. Since at least the fourth century BC, the ancient Greeks and Romans recognised that the climate changes over time and that human activity can cause it. They worried deeply about the impact it would have on us as individuals, and on broader society. The earliest mention of climate change? Greek writer Theophrastus of Eresus (who lived roughly from 372 BCE to 282 BCE) was a student of Aristotle. He is sometimes credited with the earliest reference to climate change. In his treatise On Winds, Theophrastus notes people in Crete recognised their climate had changed over the centuries: [they say] that now the winters are longer and more snow falls, presenting as proof the fact that the mountains once had been inhabited and bore crops, both grain and fruit-tree, the land having been planted and cultivated. For there are vast plains among the Idaean mountains and among others, none of which are farmed now because they do not bear (crops). But once, as was said, they were in fact settled, for which reason indeed the island was full of people, as heavy rains occurred at that time, whereas much snow and wintery weather did not occur. It’s unclear how accurate Theophrastus’ account of Crete’s climate might be or what time period is meant by the word “once”. Modern scientific studies suggest that from 8000 BCE to 600 BCE Crete experienced various alternations of climate, for example from humid and warm to dry and warm to cold and humid, while in the time when Theophrastus was writing the climate is meant to have been relatively warm and dry. Theophrastus’ observation shows people handed down information about climate change from generation to generation. Ancient awareness of the role of humans in climate change In ancient Greek and Roman times, some were even aware that human actions could contribute to changes in climate. The Roman aristocrat Pliny the Elder (23/24-79 CE) wrote a work titled Natural History, in which he gave examples of human induced climate change. In one passage, Pliny noted that in the district of Larisa in Thessaly the emptying of a lake has lowered the temperature of the district. According to Pliny, because of this change of climate: olives which used to grow there before have disappeared, also the vines have begun to be nipped (by frost), which did not occur before. Pliny noted this kind of change caused by human activity had happened elsewhere in Greece: The city of Aenos, since the river Maritza was brought near to it, has experienced an increase of warmth and the district round Philippi altered its climate when its land under cultivation was drained. Ancient awareness of long-term climate changes Ancient Greeks and Romans understood the climate is not static over time. The Roman writer Columella (active around 50 CE) noted in his work On Agriculture that climate change had been mentioned by earlier writers: For I have found that many authorities […] were convinced that with the long passing of the ages, weather and climate undergo a change. Columella refers to the Roman writer Saserna (who was active in the early first century BCE). Saserna had observed how: Regions which formerly, because of the unremitting severity of winter, could not safeguard any shoot of the vine or the olive planted in them, now that the earlier coldness has abated and the weather is becoming more clement, produce olive harvests and the vintages of Bacchus (wine) in the greatest abundance. Saserna did not, however, attribute these long-term climactic changes to human activity. He suggested they were caused by the position of the Earth in relation to the Sun and the other planets, writing that: The position of the heavens has changed. Ancient responses to climate change Greek and Roman writers sometimes complained about the destruction being done to the environment. Roman writer Pliny the Elder said that: We taint the rivers and the elements of nature, and the air itself, which is the main support of life, we turn into a medium for the destruction of life. However, most ancient authors tended not to link environmental damage or pollution with climate change as much as we do today. The exception is when they talk about the draining of lakes or diversions of rivers, which worried many. Some ancient leaders, such as Roman emperor Nerva, took action to clean up the environment. Universal Images Group/Getty Ancient authors did, however, see protection of the environment as a serious concern. Their view was making the environment unhealthy would make people unhealthy, too. For example, the physician Galen (129-216 CE) said that in his time the Tiber River in Rome was so polluted that it was not safe to eat fish caught there. Nonetheless, many people ate the fish, got sick, and died. The main pollution sources were sewage and rubbish. Some ancient leaders took action to clean up the environment. For instance, the Roman emperor Nerva (who ruled 96-98 CE) undertook construction works that caused the appearance of the city to be “clean and altered” and made the air “purer”, according to the Roman writer Frontinus. What the modern world can learn Ancient Greek and Roman writings reveal ancient concerns about our negative impact on the environment. They show that places once rich and fertile later became desolate and barren. Although the Greeks and Romans linked environmental harm with climate change to a more limited extent than we do today, they nevertheless knew harming the environment could change the climate. This, they understood, can ultimately bring harm to ourselves personally and to our societies as a whole. Konstantine Panegyres does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Climate
Agriculture
Mountains

Jaguars and Whales are NOT carbon OFFSETS

by Tom BK Goldtooth Originally published by CBD Alliance   ‘Indigenous Peoples’ sacred animal relatives, such as jaguars, whales, and elephants, are being used as carbon and biodiversity offsets and extractive industries’ greenwash, a grave affront to our traditional knowledge systems and spiritual lifeways. For example, in Peru, the Jaguar Amazon REDD Project of the […] The post Jaguars and Whales are NOT carbon OFFSETS first appeared on Indigenous Environmental Network.

by Tom BK Goldtooth Originally published by CBD Alliance   ‘Indigenous Peoples’ sacred animal relatives, such as jaguars, whales, and elephants, are being used as carbon and biodiversity offsets and extractive industries’ greenwash, a grave affront to our traditional knowledge systems and spiritual lifeways. For example, in Peru, the Jaguar Amazon REDD Project of the […] The post Jaguars and Whales are NOT carbon OFFSETS first appeared on Indigenous Environmental Network.

Animals
Indigenous

The Ideal Shower Is This Many Minutes Long, According To Experts

Here’s what your skin, the planet and your wallet wish you knew.

The more stressed some of us get, the more we can find ourselves wanting to double (or triple) down on our self-care routines. Case in point: the “everything shower.” It all started on TikTok, and now the platform is exploding with people demonstrating hours-long shower sessions that include exfoliation, shaving, hair masks, body scrubs, face masks, oils, serums and more. The appeal, in large part, lies with the fact that it’s a way to take control of one small part of your life, when so much else seems out of control.It’s a little bit washing up, a little bit spa treatment and a whole lot performative wellness ritual — and even more water. Many everything shower proponents describe it as a reset after a hard week and a way to “start over” with a scrupulously groomed body, head to toe. They sing the praises of time spent focused just on themselves, tending to each square inch of flesh and treating themselves with kindness and devotion.But is it a little too much? Should our skin be under running water for such a long period of time? And what about a long shower’s impact on our increasingly drought-ridden planet? Here’s what science-based experts, not TikTok influencers, have to say about the everything shower trend. Cleansing our skin is important, but stripping it can be detrimental.You need to keep your skin clean for all sorts of reasons, said dermatologist Dr. Nada Elbuluk, a professor of clinical dermatology at the University of Southern California. “Cleansing is important for removing dirt, dead skin cells and other contaminants that we may come into contact with throughout the day, such as bacteria, viruses and fungi,” she added. FG Trade via Getty ImagesKeep it to five minutes, sir.You should make sure you’re keeping “hot spots” clean, said dermatologist Dr. Mojgan Hosseinipour: “There are a few areas you should always wash daily, including armpits, groin, feet and face, because those accumulate sweat, bacteria and oil more quickly.” Hosseinipour also recommended showering after every workout, and possibly more frequently if you live in a hot and humid climate or are prone to sweating and body acne.But overdoing it is a strong “no” from these doctors. “Overwashing the skin may strip natural oils and lead to excessive dryness,” Elbuluk said. “Avoid hot water, too, because the hotter water is, and the longer the exposure to it, the more it ultimately dries out the skin.”“My motto is: keep it simple,” Hosseinipour said. “Occasionally adding a few extra steps to create a spa-like self-care experience can be enjoyable, but regularly taking an everything shower isn’t necessary. My main concern lies with exfoliation, because excessive scrubbing or over-exfoliating can cause redness, dryness and itching, and it can even damage the skin barrier. A gentle, consistent routine is far more beneficial for long-term skin health.”In summary, an everything shower might make you feel like a brand-new person, but it can also leave your skin barrier feeling prematurely old and excessively dehydrated, which is pretty much the exact opposite of what you were hoping to accomplish. The environmental impact is significant.With droughts and water shortages increasing globally, long showers also raise real sustainability concerns. Reducing the length of your shower doesn’t just protect your skin, but also results in fewer gallons being drawn from overstressed reservoirs and less energy being used to heat and pump that water. Significant water shortages are already an issue for some parts of the world, and many of us can anticipate that the situation will have a negative impact on our lives in the near future. The United Nations projects that within just five years, global demand for freshwater will exceed supply by 40%. The need for water is increasing, thanks to the emergence of “megadroughts” that have recently affected the West Coast, southern Europe, and sub-Saharan Africa. Reducing the time you spend in the shower may seem like a small act, but enough of us taking action together can reduce community demand on fragile freshwater systems and the energy required to treat, heat and move that water to our homes. In the United States, for example, the average shower lasts for 7.8 minutes and uses approximately 15.8 gallons of water, according to the nonprofit organization Alliance for Water Efficiency. The organization states that the duration of the shower has a direct impact on water usage. If you’re doing a full-blown 30- to 45-minute “everything shower,” you could be burning through 75 to 110 gallons of water. Every time. That’s basically the equivalent of running three loads of laundry for just one shower.Many of us act as though water appears like magic when we turn on a faucet, but the city you live in has to pump, treat and distribute every gallon, which is an energy-intensive process. The EPA estimates that water and wastewater treatment often consumes 30 to 40% of a city’s total energy consumption. Wasting water doesn’t just affect your own household’s water and heating bill — it also puts a strain on your area’s systems and reserves. Shorter showers save you money.Acting to help the planet can also have a positive impact on your monthly energy and water bills, too. According to the EPA, the average American family of four uses approximately 400 gallons of water per day, so any way to reduce that amount can make a significant difference. Cutting your shower time from a typical 10-minute one to five minutes saves roughly 10 to 12 gallons each time.Besides saving on water, shorter showers save on the energy needed to heat the water you’re using, so less time spent under warm or hot water is a savings of fuel, as well. Research has shown that reducing shower durations from six to 10 minutes to four minutes can lead to energy savings ranging from 0.1 to 3.8 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per person per day. These shorter showers represented a combined water and energy cost savings of between $37 and $500 per household per year.So, how long should a shower be? “In general, dermatologists recommend no more than 5 to 10 minutes of warm water exposure per day for showers,” Elbuluk said. If you have atopic dermatitis and/or very dry skin, you may want to stay closer to, or under, the 5-minute point.From an environmental standpoint, taking shorter showers, around five minutes, is considered an effective way to conserve water. Can you stick to a five-minute shower routine? If you prep everything before turning on the water, including getting out shampoo and locating your washcloth or scrubber, it’s more than possible. If you have to wait for hot water to reach the shower before you can step in, you can save even more water by collecting that initial “run off” of cold water in a bucket for watering plants. If you need to do more than a quick shampoo, conditioner and body wash, turn the water off while you shave or deep condition.YourSupportMakes The StoryYour SupportFuelsOur MissionYour SupportFuelsOur MissionJoin Those Who Make It PossibleHuffPost stands apart because we report for the people, not the powerful. Our journalism is fearless, inclusive, and unfiltered. Join the membership program and help strengthen news that puts people first.We remain committed to providing you with the unflinching, fact-based journalism everyone deserves.Thank you again for your support along the way. We’re truly grateful for readers like you! Your initial support helped get us here and bolstered our newsroom, which kept us strong during uncertain times. Now as we continue, we need your help more than ever. We hope you will join us once again.We remain committed to providing you with the unflinching, fact-based journalism everyone deserves.Thank you again for your support along the way. We’re truly grateful for readers like you! Your initial support helped get us here and bolstered our newsroom, which kept us strong during uncertain times. Now as we continue, we need your help more than ever. We hope you will join us once again.Support HuffPostAlready a member? Log in to hide these messages.Some environmentally conscious folks set a five-minute timer as soon as they turn on the faucet, or sing a few choruses of their favorite song, timed in advance. One British energy company has even issued a “Short Shower Playlist” of tunes that run no longer than five minutes. With a little focus and some preplanning, you may be able to turn an “out in five” shower into a win-win for your skin, your household expenses and the planet.

Climate
Energy
Health

Global emissions on pace to exceed Paris goals despite progress: UN report

The world is still on track to exceed the Paris Agreement’s warming goals, though it has made some progress since last year, according to a new report from the United Nations. The report found that if the plans submitted by nations around the world are followed, global warming will be limited to between 2.3 degrees...

The world is still on track to exceed the Paris Agreement’s warming goals, though it has made some progress since last year, according to a new report from the United Nations. The report found that if the plans submitted by nations around the world are followed, global warming will be limited to between 2.3 degrees Celsius and 2.5 degrees Celsius, or 4.14 and 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit.  That 2.3 to 2.5 degree estimate is down from last year’s report, under which national plans would have resulted in 2.6 to 2.8 degrees Celsius of warming.  If actual policies are followed, which tend to fall short of national goals, the world is expected to warm by 2.8 Celsius, 5.04 degrees Fahrenheit. That warming is considered an average temperature on the Earth’s surface: The temperature change experienced on land may be higher.  Under the Paris Agreement, countries around the world have called for limiting warming to 2 degrees celsius as part of an effort to limit the worsening extreme weather caused by climate change. The report comes as the Trump administration is poised to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, and will be decoupled from its commitment in next year’s report, as the withdrawal will become effective next year. This will result in a 0.1 degree Celsius, or 0.18 degree Fahrenheit, increase in next year’s estimate, the report said. The estimates are based on emissions cuts stemming from country pledges and while the U.S. exit may mean there are fewer climate commitments on the books, this doesn’t necessarily mean that the accompanying emissions increases will actually occur.  The State Department “does not support” the report, per a statement included in a footnote. “The United States does not support the Emissions Gap Report,” the U.S. government said. “It is the policy of the United States that international environmental agreements must not unduly or unfairly burden the United States. Accordingly, the U.S. Department of State notified the UN Secretary-General of the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on January 27.” 

Climate
Government

Stone tool discovery suggests very first humans were inventors

The find shows that the technology was passed down through thousands of generations.

Stone tool discovery suggests very first humans were inventors Pallab GhoshScience CorrespondentDavid BraunThey look like simple stones, but they were state of the art tools millions of years ago, made with great skill and precisonThe very first humans millions of years ago may have been inventors, according to a discovery in northwest Kenya.Researchers have found that the primitive humans who lived 2.75 million years ago at an archaeological site called Namorotukunan used stone tools continuously for 300,000 years.Evidence previously suggested that early human tool use was sporadic: randomly developed and quickly forgotten.The Namorotukunan find is the first to show that the technology was passed down through thousands of generations.According to Prof David Braun, of George Washington University, in Washington DC, who led the research, this find, published in the journal Nature Communications, provides incredibly strong evidence for a radical shake-up in our understanding of human evolution."We thought that tool use could have been a flash in the pan and then disappeared. When we see 300,000 years of the same thing, that's just not possible," he said."This is a long continuity of behaviour. That tool use in (humans and human ancestors) is probably much earlier and more continuous than we thought it was."David BraunThe stone tools were so sharp that the researchers could cut their fingers on some of themArchaeologists spent ten years at Namorotukunan uncovering 1,300 sharp flakes, hammerstones, and stone cores, each made by carefully striking rocks gathered from riverbeds. These are made using a technology known as Oldowan and is the first widespread stone tool-making method.The same kinds of tools appear in three distinct layers. The deeper the layer the further back the snapshot in time. Many of the stones were specially chosen for their quality, suggesting that the makers were skilled and knew exactly what they were looking for, according to the senior geoscientist on the research team, Dr Dan Palcu Rolier of the University of São Paulo in Brazil."What we see here in the site is an incredible level of sophistication," he told BBC News."These guys were extremely astute geologists. They knew how to find the best raw materials and these stone tools are exceptional. Basically, we can cut our fingers with some of them."Geological evidence suggests that tool use probably helped these people survive dramatic changes in climate. The landscape shifted from lush wetlands to dry, fire-swept grasslands and semideserts," said Rahab N. Kinyanjui, senior scientist at the National Museums of Kenya.These sharp environmental changes would normally force animal populations to adapt through evolution or move away. But the toolmakers in the region managed to thrive by using technology rather than biological adaptation, according to Dr Palcu Rolier."Technology enabled these early inhabitants of East Turkana to survive in a rapidly changing landscape - not by adapting themselves, but adapting their ways of finding food."The evidence of stone tools at different layers shows that for a long and continuous period, these primitive people flew in the face of biological evolution, finding a way of controlling the world around them, rather than letting the world control them.And this happened at the very beginning of the emergence of humanity, according to Dr Palcu Rolier."Tool use meant that they did not have to evolve by modifying their bodies to adapt to these changes. Instead, they developed the technology they needed to get access to the food: tools for ripping open animal carcasses and digging up plants."David BraunThe Namorotukunan site, located in Kenya's Turkana Basin, lies close to the ancient course of a long dried up major river which once attracted settlements of early humans and their ancestorsThere is evidence for this at the site: of animal bones being broken, being cut with these stone tools, which means that through these changes, they were consistently able to use meat as a way of sustenance."The technology gives these early inhabitants an advantage, says Dr Palcu Rolier."They are able to access different types of foods as environments change, their source of sustenance is changing, but because they have this technology, they can bypass these challenges and access new food."David BraunArchaeologists excavate a 2.58 million year old site in northern Kenya at the site of NamorotukunanAt around 2.75 million years ago, the region was populated by some of the very first humans, who had relatively small brains. These early humans are thought to have lived alongside their evolutionary ancestors: a pre-human group, called australopithecines, who had larger teeth and a mix of chimpanzee and human traits.The tool users at Namorotukunan were most likely one of these groups or possibly both.And the finding challenges the notion held by many experts in human evolution that continuous tool use emerged much later, between 2.4 and 2.2 million years ago, when humans had evolved relatively larger brains, according to Prof Braun."The argument is that we're looking at a pretty substantial brain size increase. And so, often the assertion has been that tool use allowed them to feed this large brain."But what we're seeing at Namorotukunan is that these really early tools are used before that brain size increase.""We have probably vastly underestimated these early humans and human ancestors. We can actually trace the roots of our ability to adapt to change by using technology much earlier than we thought, all the way to 2.75 million years ago, and probably much earlier."

Technology
Animals
Food

‘Forever chemicals’ represent new environmental threat for Florida’s fragile Everglades

The co-author of a new paper says the presence of PFAS on the Everglades reservation of the Miccosukee Tribe suggests more restoration may be necessary in the river of grass.

The co-author of a new paper says the presence of PFAS on the Everglades reservation of the Miccosukee Tribe suggests more restoration may be necessary in the river of grass.

Chemicals

Ofwat letting water firms charge twice to tackle sewage, court to hear

River Action bringing legal action against water regulator over who should foot bill for firms’ past failures to investOfwat is unlawfully allowing water companies to charge customers twice to fund more than £100bn of investment to reduce sewage pollution, campaigners will allege in court on Tuesday.Lawyers for River Action say the bill increases being allowed by Ofwat – which amount to an average of £123 a year per household – mean customers will be paying again for improvements to achieve environmental compliance that should have been funded from their previous bills. Continue reading...

Ofwat is unlawfully allowing water companies to charge customers twice to fund more than £100bn of investment to reduce sewage pollution, campaigners will allege in court on Tuesday.Lawyers for River Action say the bill increases being allowed by Ofwat – which amount to an average of £123 a year per household – mean customers will be paying again for improvements to achieve environmental compliance that should have been funded from their previous bills.Ofwat has approved a £104bn injection of cash by water companies to the end of the decade, in what is referred to as its PR24 decision, to tackle record sewage pollution into rivers as a result of underinvestment over many years.Customers of some of the worst-performing companies are facing huge bill rises. Thames Water customers are being charged 35% more, raising average bills from £436 to £588, and Southern Water customers are being charged 53% more, increasing from £420 to £642 a year on average. United Utilities is raising bills by 32% to an average of £535 a year.Lawyers are using the case of Windermere as an example to argue that customers are being unlawfully charged twice. They argue that any investment to repair historic under-investment in infrastructure should be paid for by shareholders, not customers. According to Ofwat rules, customers must only pay for new infrastructure investment, not investment to bring a company into compliance with environmental legislation.Emma Dearnaley, the head of legal at River Action, said: “It is fundamental that the public should not be made to pay twice for water companies’ past failures to invest in improvements to stop sewage pollution. But River Action is concerned that Ofwat’s approach means customers could be paying again. Meanwhile, degraded infrastructure keeps spewing pollution into rivers and lakes across the country that should have been clean decades ago.”The case argues that Ofwat must ensure the billions it approves results in legal compliance by water companies and that customers are charged fairly from now on.Ricardo Gama, of Leigh Day, who is representing River Action at the hearing in Manchester, said: “Our client believes that this case shows that Ofwat has failed to make sure that water bills are used for infrastructure upgrades.“River Action will argue that the money that could and should have been used to make essential infrastructure improvements is now gone, and customers are being asked to foot the bill for those improvements a second time over.”The hearing takes place at Manchester civil justice centre on Tuesday and Wednesday.An Ofwat spokesperson said: “We reject River Action’s claims. The PR24 process carefully scrutinised business plans to ensure that customers were getting fair value and investment was justified.“We stated that customers should not pay twice for companies to regain compliance with environmental permits, and have included appropriate safeguards in our PR24 determinations to monitor this, which we will monitor closely, taking action if required. We cannot comment further at this time due to the ongoing hearing.”

Water
Pollution

Yeast on Mars could survive, unique new research shows

A new study from scientists in India shows that yeast could survive on Mars, tolerating both shockwaves from impacts and toxic perchlorate salts. The post Yeast on Mars could survive, unique new research shows first appeared on EarthSky.

View larger. | Saccharomyces cerevisiae, also known as baker’s yeast. Could yeast survive on Mars? A new study from scientists in India shows how yeast on Mars could, in fact, tolerate the red planet’s harsh conditions. Image via Mogana Das Murtey/ Patchamuthu Ramasamy/ Wikimedia Commons (CC BY 3.0). Yeasts are single-celled microorganisms of the fungus kingdom. Could yeast survive on Mars? A new study from researchers in India shows that some of them would be able to. The yeast cells were exposed to high-intensity shockwaves and toxic perchlorate salts in lab tests. Many of them survived. Science matters. Wonder matters. You matter.Join our 2025 Donation Campaign today. Yeast on Mars When it comes to earthly organisms that could conceivably survive on Mars’ harsh surface, the options are seemingly few. But scientists in India found one that just might be able to: yeast. Researchers at the Indian Institute of Science (IISc) and the Physical Research Laboratory (PRL) said on October 24, 2025, that simple yeast cells could survive shockwaves from meteorite impacts and highly toxic perchlorate salts. The research team used simple baker’s yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) for their experiments. Yeasts are tiny, single-celled microorganisms that are classified as part of the fungus kingdom. There are more than 1,500 species currently known. The researchers published their peer-reviewed findings in the journal PNAS Nexus on October 14, 2025. Shockwaves and salts To find out if yeast could actually survive the extreme conditions on Mars, the researchers exposed their yeast samples to two kinds of environmental factors. These were shock waves, mimicking meteorite impacts or marsquakes, and perchlorate salts, which are highly toxic and common on Mars. The shockwaves reached mach 5.6 in intensity. In addition, the researchers exposed the yeast cells to 100 mM sodium perchlorate. This was done both in isolation from the shockwaves and in combination with the shockwaves. These unique experiments had not been done before, explained lead author Riya Dhage, a project assistant at the Indian Institute of Science: One of the biggest hurdles was setting up the HISTA tube to expose live yeast cells to shock waves – something that has not been attempted before – and then recovering yeast with minimum contamination for downstream experiments. What makes this work unique is the integration of shock wave physics and chemical biology with molecular cell biology to probe how life might cope with such Mars-like stressors. Could life survive on Mars? Yeast offers a clue #EarthDotCom #EarthSnap #Earth — Earth.com (@earthdotcom.bsky.social) 2025-10-25T13:25:36Z Yeast on Mars survived in simulations Remarkably, many of the yeast cells did survive. Notably, this was the case whether they were tested with the shockwaves and perchlorates together or separately. The growth of the cells did slow down, but the stressful and toxic conditions didn’t kill them. Co-author Purusharth Rajyaguru said: We were surprised to observe yeast surviving the Mars-like stress conditions that we used in our experiments. We hope that this study will galvanize efforts to have yeast on board in future space explorations. So, how did they survive? The researchers said that ribonucleoprotein (RNP) condensates, produced by the cells, likely saved them. Those are tiny structures that have no membranes. They help protect and reorganize mRNA (messenger RNA) when the cells are under stress. mRNA is a type of single-stranded RNA (ribonucleic acid) involved in protein creation. In fact, the shockwaves triggered the creation of two types of RNPs, called stress granules and P-bodies. The perchlorates, meanwhile, caused the formation of just P-bodies. In some cases, however, the yeast cells weren’t able to form those structures. And consequently, those cells didn’t survive. View larger. | This image shows yeast cells with the protective RNP condensates in them (yellow dots). Image via Riya Dhage/ Indian Institute of Science. Lead author Riya Dhage and co-author Purusharth Rajyaguru at the Indian Institute of Science. Image via Swati Lamba/ Indian Institute of Science. Possible biosignatures The fact that many of the yeast cells did survive was surprising, and shows that similar kinds of cells could indeed survive on Mars in some instances. With that in mind, the protective RNP condensates might actually be good biosignatures – signs of life – when searching for evidence of extraterrestrial lifeforms. Dhage said: What makes this work unique is the integration of shock wave physics and chemical biology with molecular cell biology to probe how life might cope with such Mars-like stressors. Bottom line: A new study from scientists in India shows that yeast could survive on Mars, tolerating both shockwaves from impacts and toxic perchlorate salts. Source: Ribonucleoprotein (RNP) condensates modulate survival in response to Mars-like stress conditions Via Indian Institute of Science Read more: Life on Mars? Odd rings and spots tantalize scientists Read more: Prototaxites: Oldest giant organisms a lost kingdom of life?The post Yeast on Mars could survive, unique new research shows first appeared on EarthSky.

Chemicals
Nature
Science

Shein bans sex dolls after outcry in France over ‘childlike’ appearance

France had threatened to bar the fast-fashion retailer after an investigation found that sex dolls resembling children were being sold on Shein’s platform.

Shein on Monday banned all sales of sex dolls on its site after France threatened to bar the Chinese-founded fast-fashion online retailer from operating there, citing the result of an investigation that found that sex dolls resembling children were being sold on Shein’s platform.France’s office for consumer affairs, competition policy and fraud control said last week that it had referred Shein to the country’s public prosecutor after discovering that sex dolls with a “childlike” appearance were available on the company’s website. “Their description and categorization on the site leave little doubt as to the child pornography nature of the content,” the office said in a statement.Roland Lescure, France’s finance minister, said Monday on social media that he would call for the Shein platform to be banned in France if there were any further sales of such dolls. The company is set to open its first brick-and-mortar store in France this week.Sarah El Haïry, France’s high commissioner for children, called the products a serious threat to children.In response, Shein said in a statement that it had banned the sale of all sex dolls and temporarily removed all adult products while it conducted a review. Besides selling its own products, Shein operates an e-commerce platform for other sellers.“While each seller is responsible for their own listings, SHEIN does not tolerate any breach of marketplace rules and policies,” the statement said. It added that it would cooperate with any investigations.Executive Chairman Donald Tang said in the statement that “the fight against child exploitation is non-negotiable” for the company. “These were marketplace listings from third-party sellers — but I take this personally,” he added.The French consumer affairs office also said Monday in a separate statement that it had expanded its investigation to Chinese-based online retail platform AliExpress — through which it said childlike sex dolls were also available for sale — and had also referred the matter to France’s public prosecutor.Alibaba Group, AliExpress’s parent company, said in an email that the listings are prohibited under its rules and were removed as soon as the company became aware of them. “As a third-party marketplace, we require all sellers to comply with applicable laws and our platform policies,” it said.Shein, known for its huge inventory of fast-fashion products, is set to open its first physical store Wednesday in Paris, an announcement that ruffled feathers in the couture capital of the world. It plans to open stores in six locations throughout France owned by the SGM Group, including landmark Paris department store BHV Marais, according to Reuters.Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo last month expressed concern about the upcoming store, saying in a social media post that it was “contrary to the environmental and social ambitions of Paris, which supports responsible and sustainable local commerce.”The brand had already faced union-led protests last month over its plan to open an outlet at BHV Marais, where there were more protests this week by children’s rights advocates over the sex dolls.Frédéric Merlin, president of the SGM Group, said on social media that the sex dolls for sale on Shein were unacceptable. He added that only goods produced directly by Shein would be sold at the physical stores, rather than items from third-party sellers.Leo Sands contributed to this report.

Nature
Sustainable

Climate-fighting efforts show slight gain but still fall far short, UN says

All nations of the world had homework this year: submit new-and-improved plans to fight climate change. But the plans they handed in “have barely moved the needle” on reducing Earth’s future warming, a new United Nations report finds. And a good chunk of that progress is counteracted by the United States' withdrawal from the effort,...

All nations of the world had homework this year: submit new-and-improved plans to fight climate change. But the plans they handed in “have barely moved the needle” on reducing Earth’s future warming, a new United Nations report finds. And a good chunk of that progress is counteracted by the United States' withdrawal from the effort, the report adds. The newest climate-fighting plans — mandated every five years by the 2015 Paris Agreement — shaves about three-tenths of a degree Celsius (nearly six-tenths of a degree Fahrenheit) off a warming future compared with the projections a year ago. Meanwhile, the Trump administration's policies, which range from rolling back environmental regulations to hindering green energy projects, will add back a tenth of a degree of warming, the U.N. Environment Program's Emissions Gap report said Tuesday. “Every tenth of a degree has ramifications on communities, on ecosystems around the world. It is particularly important for those vulnerable communities and ecosystems that are already being impacted,″ said Adelle Thomas, vice chair of a separate U.N. scientific panel that calculates climate impacts. ”It matters in heat waves. It matters in ocean heat waves and the destruction of coral reefs. It matters long-term when we think about sea level rise. ″ Global average temperature increase is mainly caused by the release of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, which happens when fuels like oil, gas and coal are burned. So the plans that countries turn in must detail how, and how fast, they will cut emissions of such gases. Within the next decade, Earth is likely to blow past 1.5 C (2.7 F) since the mid-1800s, which is the internationally agreed-upon goal made in Paris. If nations do as they promise in their plans, the planet will warm 2.3 to 2.5 C (4.1 to 4.5 F), the report calculates. Current policies put the world on path for 2.8 C (5 F) of warming, providing context for upcoming U.N. climate talks in Belem, Brazil. Even super fast and deep cuts in emissions from coal, oil and natural gas will still more than likely mean global temperatures go up at least 1.7 C (3.1 F) this century with efforts then to bring them back down, the report says. Ten years ago, before the Paris Agreement, the world was on a path to be about 4 C (7.2 F) warmer. “We are making progress,'' UNEP Executive Director Inger Andersen told The Associated Press. "We have to go faster." The United States — which submitted a climate-fighting plan in 2024 from the Biden administration but now will exit the Paris agreement in two months — changes the future outlook significantly. Until the Trump administration decided to get out of the climate-fighting effort, the U.S. plan was promising some of the most significant cuts in future emissions, the report said. UNEP said the U.S. did not provide comments on the report by their deadline and asked for emissions data about the U.S. to be removed. The UNEP declined but included a footnote at the U.S. request, saying that it doesn’t support the report. Now the U.N. is calculating that the rest of world must cut an additional 2 billion tons a year of carbon dioxide to make up for what the report projects is growing American carbon pollution. Last year, the world pumped 57.7 billion tons of greenhouse gases into the air and needs to get down to about 33 billion tons a year to have a chance of limiting warming to near the goal, the report said. Climate Analytics CEO Bill Hare, who helps run a separate emissions and temperature projecting report called Climate Action Tracker, said that his calculations show the same as the report. The numbers indicate “a lack of political will,” he said. ___ The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

Climate
CO2
Pollution

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.