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

US Exits Carbon Talks on Shipping, Urges Others to Follow - Document

By Jonathan Saul and Michelle NicholsLONDON (Reuters) -The United States has withdrawn from talks in London looking at advancing decarbonisation in...

By Jonathan Saul and Michelle NicholsLONDON (Reuters) -The United States has withdrawn from talks in London looking at advancing decarbonisation in the shipping sector and Washington will consider "reciprocal measures" to offset any fees charged to U.S. ships, a diplomatic note said.Delegates are at the UN shipping agency's headquarters this week for negotiations over decarbonisation measures aimed at enabling the global shipping industry to reach net zero by "around 2050".An initial proposal by a bloc of countries including the European Union, that was submitted to the UN's International Maritime Organization (IMO), had sought to reach agreement for the world’s first carbon levy for shipping on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions."The U.S. rejects any and all efforts to impose economic measures against its ships based on GHG emissions or fuel choice," according to a diplomatic demarche sent to ambassadors by the United States."For these reasons the U.S. is not engaging in negotiations at the IMO 3rd Marine Environment Protection Committee from 7-11 April and urges your government to reconsider its support for the GHG emissions measures under consideration."It was not clear how many of the IMO's 176-member countries received the note."Should such a blatantly unfair measure go forward, our government will consider reciprocal measures so as to offset any fees charged to U.S. ships and compensate the American people for any other economic harm from any adopted GHG emissions measures," the note from Washington said.Washington also opposed "any proposed measure that would fund any unrelated environmental or other projects outside the shipping sector", the note added.U.S. officials in Washington did not immediately comment when contacted late on Tuesday.The IMO had not yet received any communication, an IMO spokesperson said on Wednesday.Shipping, which transports around 90% of world trade and accounts for nearly 3% of the world's carbon dioxide emissions, has faced calls from environmentalists and investors to deliver more concrete action, including a carbon levy.(Reporting by Jonathan Saul, Michelle Nichols, Gram Slattery and Kate Abnett; Editing by Sharon Singleton)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.

What You Should Know About Fluoride

Here's what medical and public health experts are saying about the debate around fluoridation of drinking water.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced on Monday that he will direct the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to stop recommending water fluoridation nationwide “It makes no sense to have [fluoride] in our water supply,” Kennedy told reporters during a visit to Utah. “I’m very, very proud of this state for being the first state to ban it, and I hope many more will come.”But what exactly is fluoride? What does it do? And why are people like Kennedy calling for its removal from public water systems? We asked experts to break down the debate. What is fluoride? Why is it in drinking water?“Fluoride is a naturally occurring mineral that belongs to a group of chemical compounds containing the element fluorine,” said Dr. Jarrett L. Manning, a dentist and founder of JLM Dental Studio. “It exists in various forms: sodium fluoride, stannous fluoride and sodium monofluorophosphate.”Small amounts of fluoride are naturally present in soil, plants, water and certain foods, but it’s also added to drinking water and dental products due to its ability to strengthen tooth enamel and prevent cavities.“Many communities add fluoride to public water supplies, a process known as water fluoridation, to improve oral health and help prevent tooth decay on a population level,” Manning explained.Basically, acid-producing bacteria grows in the mouth, which dissolves minerals on the surface of teeth and can lead to tooth decay, or cavities. Fluoride prevents and stops that bacterial growth and can even reverse early tooth decay, thus reducing the need for treatments, which can be painful and expensive.“Research over many years has shown that water fluoridation can significantly reduce the incidence of cavities in both children and adults, regardless of access to dental care,” said Dr. Cheryline Pezzullo, a clinical associate professor and director of community-based programs at New York University’s College of Dentistry. “By adding small, safe amounts of fluoride to the water supply, communities can reduce tooth decay across the board, particularly benefiting those who may not have regular access to dental care.”Grand Rapids, Michigan, became the first city to fluoridate its public water supply, in 1945, and a decade later, the rate of cavities in local children had fallen 60% to 65%. Researchers reported similar findings among both kids and adults as more communities adopted fluoridation in the subsequent decades.Today, more than 60% of the U.S. population receives fluoridated water.“The American Dental Association has long been a proponent of water fluoridation since its introduction and study,” said cosmetic dentist Dr. Amanda Lewis. Other public health groups, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), similarly support this practice due to its benefits to oral and overall health. Preventing tooth decay lowers the need for treatments such as tooth extractions and fillings, and if left untreated, cavities can lead to serious abscesses, infections and even sepsis.The Public Health Service recommends a concentration of 0.7 milligram of fluoride per liter of water in community systems, which the CDC equates to about three drops of water in a 55-gallon barrel. Communities that already have naturally higher levels of fluoride do not need fluoridation.What’s the controversy?“The controversy around fluoride in water often centers on questions about health risks, personal choice and concerns about overexposure,” Pezzullo said. “Although I do not agree, some argue that fluoride ― even in small amounts ― could have potential health risks and question the ethics of adding it to public water supplies.”In recent years, communities across the U.S. have voted to stop fluoridating their water systems. Many experts believe that the anti-fluoridation movement gained more traction amid the growing mistrust of public health authorities and government overall during the COVID-19 pandemic. “Some people feel that adding fluoride to public water supplies violates their right to choose what goes into their bodies,” Manning noted.In September, a federal judge in California ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency must strengthen regulations around water fluoridation to address concerns about potential health risks, particularly with regard to children’s cognitive development. “There’s skepticism from certain groups about the long-term effects, despite decades of research showing its safety and effectiveness when used correctly,” Pezzullo said. “Additionally, misinformation and conflicting studies have created more confusion and lead to more public debate.”Many skeptics point to a review from the National Toxicology Program, which concluded “with moderate confidence” that there is an association between higher levels of fluoride exposure and lower IQ in children.But that analysis is primarily based on studies conducted in other countries and involving fluoride concentrations of 1.5 milligrams per liter of water and above ― which is more than double the recommended limit for drinking water in the U.S.“More studies are needed to fully understand the potential for lower fluoride exposure to affect children’s IQ,” the organization stated in its report.The AAP has also expressed concerns about the limitations of the NTP’s review, including the high fluoride levels but also the geographic heterogeneity of the study populations, which hinders the ability to account for other factors that might affect IQ and assess whether the data is “accurate, comparable, or generalizable.” The organization noted that similar reviews from other groups have reached different conclusions and that the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine rejected two earlier drafts of the report.Nico De Pasquale Photography via Getty ImagesTewodros R. Godebo, an assistant professor at the Tulane University Celia Scott Weatherhead School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine who studies fluoride, told HuffPost there’s still a shortage of research on public water fluoridation in the U.S.“Before we make a policy decision to remove fluoride from U.S. public water supply systems, we need to get some questions answered,” he said. “We need more studies in the U.S. if we are going to make policy here, and the science is not yet consistent enough to make a decision.”He pointed to the lack of data on fluoridation’s effect on adults and the inconsistent conclusions about any potential association between fluoride in developed countries’ community water systems and children’s cognitive development. “If we find there is some association between IQ points and low fluoride exposure, then the next critical step would be to do a risk-benefit analysis because there is a benefit to water fluoridation in terms of dental health,” Godebo said.“What would be the cost in terms of treating dental decay and associated diseases because it’s linked to our overall health and things like heart disease. What would the total IQ loss be in a child ― would it be one point? Then is our first step to reduce water fluoridation? Do we cut that 0.7 in half? This decision has to be based on strong science.”These decisions might also have to vary on the local level in accordance with area-based data, which will likely differ across the U.S. Many fluoride studies are also limited by the challenge of accounting for other sources of fluoride exposure beyond water supply systems.Critics have argued that adding fluoride to drinking water may no longer be as effective as it was when the practice first began due to the increased use of fluoride toothpaste over time. Some point to the large number of countries that do not fluoridate their public water but have still seen reductions in tooth decay. Future data from the American communities that have removed fluoride from their systems will presumably provide more clarity.Meanwhile, misleading claims about fluoride’s potential harms have gained momentum. On Nov. 2, Kennedy asserted in a social media post that the mineral is associated with thyroid disease, arthritis and bone-related issues such as bone cancer and bone fractures.Medical experts have responded by emphasizing the lack of rigorous U.S.-based research linking fluoride to thyroid disease and arthritis. As for bone health, repeated fluoride exposure above the recommended level can lead to skeletal fluorosis, which causes weakened bones, joint pain and stiffness, but that condition is extremely rare in the U.S.Excessive fluoride exposure in children whose permanent teeth are still developing (usually up to the age of 8) can result in a cosmetic condition called dental fluorosis, which gives the teeth white spots, flecks or lines but does not cause pain or impair tooth function.To address concerns about dental fluorosis, the U.S. government amended its recommendations on public water fluoridation in 2015. Though the previous guidance recommended 0.7 milligram per liter in warmer climates and 1.2 milligrams in cooler places, the standard became 0.7 everywhere.Similarly, the ADA recommends very small amounts of fluoride toothpaste for young children to limit excess ingestion and prevent dental fluorosis. Here’s what you should know if you’re concerned about fluoride in water.Headlines can be alarming, so if you’re feeling overwhelmed by the fluoride debate taking place online and in the news, talk to your doctor, your dentist or your child’s pediatrician.“For those who are new to the topic, it’s helpful to know that fluoride has been safely added to water supplies across many parts of the world since the 1940s, with a significant decrease in cavities as a result,” Pezzullo said.She emphasized that fluoride levels in public drinking water are carefully regulated and monitored.“While it’s good to be cautious, substantial amounts of scientific research have shown that fluoride at these regulated levels is safe and does not cause harm,” Pezzullo explained. “I give fluoridated water to my own toddler and brush his teeth with fluoridated toothpaste! I can always tell when a child is not exposed to fluoride when they sit in my chair as they always have more cavities than they should.”Water fluoridation is a “simple but powerful health measure” that has been particularly beneficial for children and communities with limited access to dental care, she added. “As a dentist, I see the difference fluoride makes every day, especially in vulnerable populations.”Assessing the relative benefits and risks of water fluoridation is crucial for making policy decisions at the government level and personal choices on an individual level.Although the data has not been conclusive, preliminary research suggests that fluoride exposure during pregnancy could potentially lead to neurobehavioral issues in children. Experts who have studied this possible link are notably not calling for an end to water fluoridation, but they have suggested that pregnant women might want to opt for filtered water.“Those who prefer to avoid fluoride can choose to use fluoride-free dental products or install home water filters that remove fluoride,” Manning said. “There are alternatives to fluoride and complementary approaches for maintaining strong teeth and good oral health. Some of those alternatives are xylitol, hydroxyapatite and recaldent, just to name a few.”Lewis similarly advised reading the labels on your dental products if you want to cut down on your fluoride intake while opting for toothpastes and mouth rinses with other decay-preventing ingredients. She noted that the time and manner in which we eat, sleep and breath can also affect our oral health and thus overall health and wellness.“If you live in a city with fluoride, exposure will be inevitable,” Lewis said, listing sources like washed produce, showers and restaurant coffee, tea and water. “You can filter your water at home or purchase filtered water from a number of locations, but it is unlikely that you can completely eliminate your exposure.”It’s worth reiterating, however, that there has not been sufficient data to determine if the 0.7 milligram fluoride standard in the U.S. is linked to the health concerns critics have raised.And although Kennedy has promised to “advise all U.S. water systems to remove fluoride from public water,” the federal government ultimately cannot decide whether a community fluoridates its water supply. That decision remains at the state and local level. We Don't Work For Billionaires. We Work For You.Big money interests are running the government — and influencing the news you read. While other outlets are retreating behind paywalls and bending the knee to political pressure, HuffPost is proud to be unbought and unfiltered. Will you help us keep it that way? You can even access our stories ad-free.You've supported HuffPost before, and we'll be honest — we could use your help again. We won't back down from our mission of providing free, fair news during this critical moment. But we can't do it without you.For the first time, we're offering an ad-free experience to qualifying contributors who support our fearless journalism. We hope you'll join us.You've supported HuffPost before, and we'll be honest — we could use your help again. We won't back down from our mission of providing free, fair news during this critical moment. But we can't do it without you.For the first time, we're offering an ad-free experience to qualifying contributors who support our fearless journalism. We hope you'll join us.Support HuffPostAlready contributed? Log in to hide these messages.This story has been updated to reflect new announcements from Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Costa Rica Pulls Out of UN 2030 Agenda, Shocks Environmentalists

President Rodrigo Chaves has withdrawn Costa Rica’s support for the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda, stripping institutional funding and public interest status from the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), according to an extraordinary decree published in the official gazette on April 2, 2025. The move, if enacted, would mark a dramatic shift for a nation long hailed […] The post Costa Rica Pulls Out of UN 2030 Agenda, Shocks Environmentalists appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

President Rodrigo Chaves has withdrawn Costa Rica’s support for the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda, stripping institutional funding and public interest status from the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), according to an extraordinary decree published in the official gazette on April 2, 2025. The move, if enacted, would mark a dramatic shift for a nation long hailed as a global leader in sustainability. The 2030 Agenda, adopted by UN member states in 2015, aims to eradicate poverty, combat climate change, and ensure human rights by 2030. Costa Rica’s past alignment with these goals—evident in its renewable energy achievements and biodiversity protections—makes this decision a potential turning point. Environmental group Bloque Verde condemned the withdrawal, calling it an “ecocidal policy” that undermines Costa Rica’s credibility. With the country set to co-host the Third UN Conference on the Ocean in June 2025, the group questioned, “With what legitimacy can the government lead a summit rooted in SDG 14, which protects marine life?” They cited recent controversies—such as a shark fin transfer scandal, weakened oversight in the Gandoca-Manzanillo Refuge, and raised pesticide limits in drinking water—as evidence of environmental backsliding under Chaves. The decision could ripple internationally, dimming Costa Rica’s image as an ecological pioneer and jeopardizing cooperation projects tied to the SDGs. A UN official, speaking anonymously, expressed “deep concern” about the timing, given the ocean summit’s reliance on global unity. Chaves’s administration has not detailed its reasoning, though analysts speculate budget constraints or a push for national sovereignty may be factors. Opposition leaders have yet to respond formally, but public debate is intensifying. Bloque Verde urged the government to reverse course, pleading, “Protect our forests, rivers, and people—only then can we defend our oceans. The post Costa Rica Pulls Out of UN 2030 Agenda, Shocks Environmentalists appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

Indigenous March in Brazil to Demand More Land Be Set Aside for Their Stewardship

With the first U.N. climate talks in the Amazon approaching, thousands of Indigenous people marched Tuesday in Brazil’s capital, demanding the state guarantee and expand their rights to traditional lands as part of the solution to the world’s climate crisis

BRASILIA, Brazil (AP) — With the first U.N. climate talks in the Amazon approaching, thousands of Indigenous people marched Tuesday in Brazil’s capital, demanding the state guarantee and expand their rights to traditional lands as part of the solution to the world’s climate crisis.The protest is the high point of the annual Free Land Indigenous Camp, now in its 21st edition. Bearing messages such as “Land rights = Climate Action,” they walked toward Three Powers Square, where Congress, the Supreme Court and the presidential palace are located in Brasilia.“Indigenous territories are the most preserved and contribute to slowing the climate crisis we’re facing. But they are also the first to be impacted,” said Luene Karipuna, from the Amazonian state of Amapá, while marching. “We feel it directly in our lands, where we lost our entire cassava crop — our staple food in my community.”Thirteen percent of Brazil´s territory consists of recognized Indigenous lands, most of it in the Amazon.In the past two years, the Amazon basin has suffered its worst drought on record, leading to a surge in wildfires, isolation for river communities, crop losses and the death of wildlife, including the endangered pink dolphin. Some studies have linked the region´s extreme weather to climate change.Like several other Indigenous leaders, Karipuna plans to attend the climate talks — also known as COP30 — in November in the city of Belém. They hope the event will be a chance to promote land demarcation and other Indigenous rights in all Amazon countries, and are pressing for a greater role during the event.“This is a historic COP for the social movement. It’s a key moment for all Indigenous peoples to show that we are alive,” said Juan Carlos Jintiach, an Indigenous leader from Ecuador and executive secretary of the Global Alliance of Territorial Communities, an international organization representing Indigenous peoples from Latin America, Africa and Asia.Last year, the Indigenous movement had called for the nomination of a co-president for COP30. The proposal was rejected, but the conference’s president, Brazilian climate secretary André Corrêa do Lago, pledged to create a so-called Circle of Indigenous Leadership “to help integrate traditional knowledge and wisdom into global collective intelligence.”Dinamam Tuxá, coordinator of the Articulation of Indigenous Peoples of Brazil, said they are frustrated by the rejection of the co-presidency proposal and are still analyzing Lago’s plan.“The COP is a political moment when countries come together to negotiate the climate crisis, but unfortunately it does not engage directly with Indigenous peoples at the negotiation tables — even though we are the main defenders of these territories and are actively fighting climate change,” Tuxá told the AP.Satellite data show that Indigenous territories in the Amazon — a region twice the size of India — have very low deforestation rates. The world’s largest tropical forest is a major carbon sink and climate regulator, and it holds 20% of the planet’s fresh water.The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Feb. 2025

Why RFK Jr. wants to ban fluoride in water

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is expanding his crusade to turn back the clock on federal health policy. Having undermined the government’s support for childhood vaccines amid the worst measles outbreak in years, he is now targeting another longstanding pillar of American public health: water fluoridation. HHS will convene a board […]

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wants to remove fluoride from US water systems. | Niall Carson/PA Images via Getty Images Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is expanding his crusade to turn back the clock on federal health policy. Having undermined the government’s support for childhood vaccines amid the worst measles outbreak in years, he is now targeting another longstanding pillar of American public health: water fluoridation. HHS will convene a board of experts to review the federal government’s recommendation that communities fluoridate their water, the agency announced on Monday. The Environmental Protection Agency is simultaneously launching a review of the science on fluoride’s health effects.  The end result of those inquiries seems to be a foregone conclusion: Kennedy told the Associated Press that he wanted the government to stop recommending fluoridation. He has called fluoride “industrial waste” and blamed it for an array of health conditions, from neurological damage in children to bone cancer. Banning fluoride is an integral part of Kennedy’s campaign to Make America Healthy Again. The news of the reviews came on the same day he appeared in Salt Lake City to praise Utah for being the first state to officially ban water fluoridation. “It makes no sense to have it in our water supply,” Kennedy told reporters. “I’m very, very proud of this state for being the first state to ban it, and I hope many more will come.” The confusing science on water fluoridation, briefly explained Water fluoridation, which the US government has supported since 1950, has long been considered a major public health win. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported as recently as last year that, based on the best available evidence, fluoride in water reduces tooth decay by 25 percent for children and adults. About three in five Americans now drink fluoridated water from their community water system.  Concerns about fluoridated water’s health effects have been around for decades, too, particularly among conspiracy-minded individuals like Kennedy. Like many conspiracies, it has some basis in reality — but the reality is far more nuanced than Kennedy’s new call for banning it outright would suggest. As neuroscientist Celia Ford covered for Vox last year, questions around fluoridated water began growing after the US National Toxicology Program stated with “moderate” confidence that exposure to elevated fluoride levels could reduce IQ in children. That’s a finding worth taking seriously — but only in context. The elevated fluoride levels that were studied in the report were above 1.5 milligrams per liter — more than twice the existing federal guidelines for how much fluoride communities should add to their water. The size of the effect was also fairly small, amounting to 1 to 2 points. The real concern is for the small minority of people, about 1.9 million, who live near a community water source that already contains more than that 1.5 milligrams per liter of naturally occurring fluoride. (Those folks might want to consider a water filter, Ford wrote.)  As for Kennedy’s other claims, such as fluoridated water’s supposed links to cancer, the CDC has said studies of cancer in areas with high natural levels of fluoride have found no connection. The actual damage RFK Jr.’s crusade against fluoride could do While Kennedy may be the US’s top health official, he does not have the final word on whether Americans can access fluoride to reduce the risk of cavities. States and localities control community water systems that serve most Americans. Hawaii, for instance, has never approved water fluoridation, though the practice is not outright banned.  That can cut both ways: Kennedy has said he hopes other states and cities follow Utah’s lead, and his support could embolden some state and local officials to move forward with their own bans. But he cannot change state laws on fluoridation; some states, California and Illinois among them, require cities of a certain size to fluoridate their water. They don’t seem likely to take cues from Kennedy. The good news is that even if Kennedy can successfully encourage more states to embrace his anti-science platform and remove fluoride from their water supply, the ultimate effect on people’s dental health could ultimately be limited. One recent review of the scientific literature noted that water fluoridation studies conducted after 1975, when fluoride was introduced in toothpastes, have found less of an effect on tooth decay than earlier studies had.  But even if the practical impact of Kennedys’ crusade may be marginal, it can still be influential: A plurality of Americans, 41 percent, said in a January 2025 Ipsos poll they didn’t know whether fluoride was harmful and helpful. Now the nation’s top health official is calling for it to be banned. And the effect of such a ban would fall disproportionately on the least advantaged — one in four children living below the federal poverty line experience untreated tooth decay. Combined with his actions against vaccines, the fear remains that Kennedy’s reckless overhaul of longstanding public health recommendations could undermine public trust in and support for a wide range of public health efforts, some much more important than water fluoridation.

Texas energy company wins first-of-its-kind permit to suck carbon out of air, store underground

Environmental groups worry direct carbon capture is not the silver bullet to curb climate change many energy companies purport it to be.

Subscribe to The Y’all — a weekly dispatch about the people, places and policies defining Texas, produced by Texas Tribune journalists living in communities across the state. ODESSA — The Environmental Protection Agency has approved a Texas company’s application to capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and inject it underground, becoming the first project in the state to be awarded such a permit. Occidental Petroleum Corporation, a Houston-based oil firm, will start storing 500,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide in deep, non-permeable rock formations 4,400 feet underground as soon as this year. The facility will be located 20 miles southwest of Odessa. “This is a significant milestone for the company as we are continuing to develop vital infrastructure that will help the United States achieve energy security,” Vicky Hollub, the company’s president and CEO, said in a statement. She said these permits will help energy companies “address their emissions or produce vital resources and fuels.” Carbon dioxide is a byproduct of oil and gas production and the largest contributor to climate change. Oil and gas facilities leak or vent the greenhouse gas, which traps heat in the atmosphere and prevents it from cooling. Environmentalists and the oil and gas industry are divided over the environmental benefits of carbon capture. While the industry has hedged its climate goals on the technology, environmental policy experts remain skeptical about whether it significantly reduces air pollution, saying the world should transition to other fuel sources to slow climate change. Some Texas scientists say the injection method has been tested and proven to work for years and now needs to be implemented. Oxy will attempt to reduce the output of the gas through a technology called direct air capture, or DAC. It grabs the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and separates it from other particles in the air by incinerating them. The equipment then compresses the gas to a brine before transporting and storing it permanently underground. Related Story Oct. 2, 2024 According to the draft permit, which the EPA presented to the public for feedback last fall, Oxy will monitor the pressure and temperature of the well and downhole. It will measure every second on the surface and every ten seconds inside the well, providing a reading every ten minutes. Workers will account for corrosion and groundwater every three months. The company must alert the EPA 30 days before most tests or if there are any changes. It must also alert them of any malfunctions within 24 hours. Virginia Palacios, executive director of Commission Shift, an oil and gas watchdog group, said Oxy’s permit application did not include details regarding the layers where the carbon dioxide would be stored. She said that omitting this information gives residents no assurance that the gas will stay put, adding that the public should have been allowed to evaluate that information. More companies could follow Oxy’s lead, and win quicker approval if Texas regulators win the authority to grant such permits. The Texas Railroad Commission, the state agency regulating oil and gas companies, has applied to the EPA for the power to issue similar permits. The EPA is currently accepting public testimony. A public hearing for the public to issue feedback has not been set. Tickets are on sale now for the 15th annual Texas Tribune Festival, Texas’ breakout ideas and politics event happening Nov. 13–15 in downtown Austin. Get tickets before May 1 and save big! TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.

Have Dire Wolves, Which Went Extinct More Than 10,000 Years Ago, Really Been Brought Back to Life?

Pioneers in the science of "de-extinction," an American company has announced the births of three pups whose genes resemble those of a species that hasn't roamed Earth for millennia

Have Dire Wolves, Which Went Extinct More Than 10,000 Years Ago, Really Been Brought Back to Life? Pioneers in the science of “de-extinction,” an American company has announced the births of three pups whose genes resemble those of a species that hasn’t roamed Earth for millennia Romulus and Remus, pups that the company Colossal Biosciences says are the first dire wolves to roam the planet in several thousand years, are seen at one month old. Colossal Biosciences A researcher holds two snow-white wolf pups as they howl at the top of their adorable little lungs. Their names are Romulus and Remus—in honor of the siblings associated with the mythical founding of ancient Rome—but they’re not any kind of wolf you’ve ever seen. They’re dire wolves… ish. Made popular as the giant pets owned by the Stark children in Game of Thrones, the canine species went extinct more than 10,000 years ago. On Monday, the biotechnology startup Colossal Biosciences—known as the “de-extinction” company—announced the birth of Romulus, Remus and a third dire wolf, a female named Khaleesi (in reference to the Game of Thrones character Daenerys Targaryen). According to the firm’s statement, the dire wolf has just become “the world’s first successfully de-extincted animal.” Given the pups’ genetic similarity to gray wolves, however, some scientists are challenging this claim. Dire wolves roamed the Earth during the Pleistocene, between around 11,700 and 2.6 million years ago. Paleontologists have consistently unearthed their remains in North and South America, and they’re the most common mammal to appear in the La Brea Tar Pits of California. Compared to the modern gray wolf, the species’ closest living relative, dire wolves were larger and had bigger teeth. Since it formed in 2021, Colossal Biosciences has been known for its highly publicized efforts to “resurrect” extinct woolly mammoths, dodos and Tasmanian tigers. But their work with dire wolves had not previously been announced, writes CNN’s Katie Hunt. The First Dire Wolf Howl in Over 10,000 Years The company plans to “bring back” these species by editing the genomes of their living relatives, creating a creature that closely approximates their target. To birth Romulus, Remus and Khaleesi, researchers at Colossal extracted, sequenced and analyzed the dire wolf genome from a 13,000-year-old dire wolf tooth and a 72,000-year-old dire wolf skull. “Getting the genome was really hard, they didn’t live in cold climates, so the DNA wasn’t as well preserved,” Beth Shapiro, Colossal’s chief science officer and a researcher at the University of California at Santa Cruz, tells Bloomberg’s Josh Saul. They then compared it to the genome of a gray wolf, among other living canids. The comparison revealed 20 differences in 14 genes linked to distinct dire wolf traits, including a larger size, wider head, bigger teeth and white fur. The researchers edited gray wolf genes to match those characteristics, then inserted them into the egg cells of a domesticated dog, with the cells’ own DNA removed. The eggs developed into embryos, which were then transplanted into the wombs of large hound mixes, resulting in the births of Romulus and Remus in October, and Khaleesi in January, all via cesarean section. Another female dire wolf was born in January, but she died ten days later from an intestinal infection that Colossal says was not related to the genetic edits. Now, the modern-day dire wolves reside in a fenced-in ecological preserve certified by the American Humane Society in an undisclosed area of the northern United States. They are essentially “living the Ritz Carlton lifestyle of a wolf,” Shapiro tells the New York Times’ Carl Zimmer. Thanks to cameras and drones, “they can’t get a splinter without us knowing about it.” Dire wolf DNA is 99.5 percent identical to that of gray wolves, Shapiro tells New Scientist’s Michael Le Page. But that 0.5 percent difference could consist of millions of base pairs. This raises the question of whether the pups are really dire wolves or just genetically modified gray wolves. Scientists not connected to the initiative point out that dire wolves might have countless other genetic differences that were not accounted for in the 20 changes made by Colossal’s team. “We have a mostly gray wolf that looks like a dire wolf,” Julie Meachen, a vertebrate paleontologist from Des Moines University who was not involved in the project, says to ABC News. Meachen co-authored a paper on the evolution of dire wolves along with Shapiro in 2021, which found that the species is genetically distinct from gray wolves, having diverged from the wolf lineage nearly six million years ago. As for these new creatures, Meachen adds, “I don’t think they are actually dire wolves.” Shapiro tells Wired’s Emily Mullin and Matt Reynolds that “if we can look at this animal and see what it’s doing, and it looks like a dire wolf and acts like a dire wolf, I’m going to call it a dire wolf. And my colleagues who are taxonomists will disagree with me.” Romulus and Remus, pictured at three months old, can run around outside in their enclosure at an undisclosed location. Colossal Biosciences Other scientists point out that the pups might not know how to act like dire wolves. Romulus, Remus and Khaleesi are unlikely to exhibit behaviors typical of wild dire wolves due to being raised in captivity without a pack structure, says Adam Boyko, a geneticist at Cornell University who was not involved in the project, to the New York Times. He adds that since the dire wolves are not consuming the ancient dire wolf diet, they are also not developing their ancestors’ intestinal microbes. Nevertheless, Colossal CEO Ben Lam maintains that “if we are successful in de-extinction, we’re building technologies that can help human health care and conservation,” as he tells Bloomberg. In this spirit, Colossal also birthed two litters of cloned red wolves—the most endangered wolf species in the world. Just last month, the company announced the birth of “woolly mice”, which they say is a critical step in the de-extinction of woolly mammoths. In October last year, they also claimed to have built the most complete ancient genome to date, belonging to the Tasmanian tiger. But some have raised questions about what the conservation purpose of these dire wolves will be, or how “de-extinct” species could be released into the wild ecosystems of today. “In states like Montana, we are currently having trouble keeping a healthy population of gray wolves on the land in the face of amped up political opposition,” Christopher Preston, an environmental philosopher at the University of Montana, tells CNN. “It is hard to imagine dire wolves ever being released and taking up an ecological role. So, I think it is important to ask what role the new animals will serve.” Get the latest stories in your inbox every weekday.

Coming to The Revelator: Exclusive Tom Toro Cartoons

The cartoonist will shine a satirical light on some of the biggest environmental problems of the day, including the extinction crisis. The post Coming to <i>The Revelator&lt;/i>: Exclusive Tom Toro Cartoons appeared first on The Revelator.

Tom Toro is among the rare cartoonists whose work has become an internet meme. His most famous cartoon, which you’ve probably seen more than once, shows some raggedy survivors huddled around a post-apocalyptic fire:   View this post on Instagram   A post shared by Tom Toro (@tbtoro) Toro has tackled other environmental issues in his cartoons for The New Yorker, Yale Climate Connections, and other publications, his own syndicated comic strip, “Home Free,” as well as his children’s picture books. Some of his cartoons will be collected later this year in his new book And to Think We Started as a Book Club… Now he’s focusing his satiric lens on the extinction crisis — and The Revelator. Exclusive Tom Toro cartoons will soon appear in our newsletter every 2-3 weeks. “I’m enjoying this too much,” Toro says. “I finally have an outlet for my lifelong love of animals and nature.” Don’t miss a single new Tom Toro cartoon — or anything else from The Revelator: Sign up for our weekly newsletter today. Previously in The Revelator: Global Warming Funnies   The post Coming to <i>The Revelator&lt;/i>: Exclusive Tom Toro Cartoons appeared first on The Revelator.

RFK Jr. Wants CDC To Stop Recommending Fluoride in Drinking Water

By I. Edwards HealthDay ReporterTUESDAY, April 8, 2025 (HealthDay News) -- U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. says he will tell the U.S....

TUESDAY, April 8, 2025 (HealthDay News) -- U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. says he will tell the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to stop recommending fluoride in drinking water across the country.He also announced plans to form a special task force to focus on health risks of fluoride.Kennedy made the comments Monday during a media event with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin in Salt Lake City. Last month, Utah became the first state to ban fluoride in public drinking water supplies.The EPA said it is reviewing new science about the possible dangers of fluoride in water, The Associated Press reported.Kennedy can’t force communities to stop fluoridating water, but he can influence the CDC’s recommendations and work with the EPA to change the allowed limits.The CDC currently recommends 0.7 milligrams of fluoride per liter of water, while the EPA allows up to 4 milligrams.“I’m very, very proud of this state for being the first state to ban it, and I hope many more will,” Kennedy said, referring to Utah.Under its new law all water systems in the state must stop adding fluoride by May 7.Kennedy called fluoride a “dangerous neurotoxin” that may also be linked to arthritis, thyroid problems and bone fractures, according to The Associated Press.Some studies have found possible health risks at higher-than-recommended levels of fluoride, but experts say more research is needed.Fluoride has long been used to strengthen teeth and prevent cavities.The CDC and other health groups have supported fluoridation since the 1950s, calling it one of the top public health achievements of the last century.Today, nearly two-thirds of Americans drink fluoridated water, according to the CDC. An estimated 17,000 water systems serving more than 60% of the U.S. population are fluoridated.But experts have concerns. Last year, the National Toxicology Program reviewed studies from six countries and found that fluoride levels above 1.5 milligrams per liter were linked to lower IQ in kids.The CDC’s 20-member Division of Oral Health was eliminated in recent federal staffing cuts.That office helped local agencies improve dental care and, in some cases, encouraged fluoridation, according to The Associated Press.“When this evaluation is completed, we will have an updated foundational scientific evaluation that will inform the agency’s future steps,” the EPA's Zeldin said. “Secretary Kennedy has long been at the forefront of this issue. His advocacy was instrumental in our decision to review fluoride exposure risks and we are committed to working alongside him, utilizing sound science as we advance our mission of protecting human health and the environment.”Lorna Koci, chair of the Utah Oral Health Coalition, said she expects more kids will suffer from cavities because of the new law.“This seems to be less about fluoride and more about power,” Koci concluded, adding that many backers of the fluoride ban in Utah had spread false health claims.SOURCE: The Associated Press, April 7, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

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.