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

The world’s lemurs are going extinct. This is the only way to save them.

On a cloudless morning in September, sunlight poured through the canopy of a banyan tree near the banks of the Onilahy River, which runs from southwest Madagascar to the Indian Ocean. The tree grew on the edge of a small karst cliff. Its roots spilled over the side like melting candle wax.  I scrambled up […]

A group of ring-tailed lemurs just waking up in a tree near the village of Ifanato in southwest Madagascar. On a cloudless morning in September, sunlight poured through the canopy of a banyan tree near the banks of the Onilahy River, which runs from southwest Madagascar to the Indian Ocean. The tree grew on the edge of a small karst cliff. Its roots spilled over the side like melting candle wax.  I scrambled up the cliff for a better view of the canopy, when I saw something staring back at me: a lemur. It had scruffy white fur, a black face with bug-eyes, and a tail that was at least the length of its body. This wasn’t just any lemur; it was a Verreaux’s sifaka: a critically endangered species that I’ve spent much of my life longing to see. This story is part of a series This fall, Vox is publishing a three-part series on conservation in Madagascar, supported by the BAND Foundation. This story is part 2.  Madagascar, an island nation east of continental Africa, is the only place on Earth where lemurs exist. There are more than 100 lemur species, and nearly all of them are at risk of extinction, including the sifaka. Their foe is deforestation; all lemurs depend on trees for food and shelter, and half or more of the country’s forests are now gone.  In Madagascar, unlike in many other forested nations, the bulk of deforestation isn’t caused by the industrial-scale farming and cattle ranching that often enriches big corporations. Forests here are primarily felled by individual families who cut trees to grow crops or collect cooking fuel. That’s how many people feed themselves and make money. They often have few other options; Madagascar ranks among the top five poorest countries in the world, and people here have few economic opportunities that don’t rely on exploitation.  Against this dim reality, the lemur before me represented something hopeful. The only reason it was here was that this tree was still standing. And this tree was still standing, because nearby villages have worked hard against tough odds to protect the forest they all share. Working alongside the World Wildlife Fund, one of the world’s largest environmental organizations, those villages created new economic opportunities for themselves that don’t destroy the forest. Together, they demonstrate a crucial element of what makes conservation work in the poorest parts of the world: first, meeting the needs of people, and then, stepping out of the way to let them take charge. The lemur I saw lives in the Onilahy River basin of southwest Madagascar, not far from the coast and the largest city in the region, called Toliara. It’s a strange landscape — a collision of desert and forest, where spiny shrubs grow nearby tall trees. The south of Madagascar is arid, yet there’s an abundance of water here that flows from the river and a series of natural springs. On a warm morning towards the end of winter in the Southern Hemisphere, I traveled from Toliara to a small village near the river called Maroamalo. The road was mostly dirt and spotted with crater-sized potholes, which — along with several goat-related traffic jams — turned a 15-mile trip into a three-hour, butt-bruising adventure.  Maroamalo is one of several communities helping protect the lemur-filled forests of the Onilahy River basin. Working alongside staff from WWF, they manage a protected area called Amoron’i Onilahy. The park is only around 250,000 acres — making it a little smaller than New York City — yet it envelops a wide variety of ecosystems, from wetlands to spiny thickets and a huge number of rare species, including eight kinds of primates. In some ways, Amoron’i Onilahy is Madagascar in miniature. The island nation is packed full of different habitat types, which is one reason why it has a higher proportion of endemic species than any other place on Earth.  Protected areas — which typically restrict certain activities that degrade ecosystems and endanger biodiversity — have a mixed record of success. This is especially true in Madagascar. Studies have found that people clear trees even within parts of the country that are formally protected, including those that are managed by communities.  One reason is that most of Madagascar’s parks lack the funds to monitor vast areas for illegal woodcutting. But a bigger challenge is that few protected areas confront the reason why people cut trees at all: their own survival. When the choice is between breaking the law and feeding your family, people choose survival. “Deforestation and illegal exploitation are still impacting nearly all protected areas despite 30 years of intensive conservation efforts,” as the authors of one study put it.  What just happened to Madagascar’s government? On September 25, the day I left Madagascar to return to the US, the capital city of Antananarivo erupted in protests, then led by Andry Rajoelina, against the government. Demonstrators — largely led by Gen Z — expressed outrage over water, electricity shortages, and a lack of economic opportunities. The protests continued for days, supercharged by broader grievances including corruption and poor governance. And on October 14, Rajoelina was impeached, and the military seized control of the country. Col. Michael Randrianirina is now in control of a transitional government that’s meant to organize elections within two years.  The government upheaval highlights the deep level of human need in Madagascar, which drives people to exploit free natural resources. Events like this also tend to fuel deforestation and make it even harder for conservation to work. Political crises weaken law enforcement, allowing more illegal logging, and hamper scientific research and tourism that support conservation.  Amoron’i Onilahy, however, appears to be an exception.  There are a few things you notice right away in Maroamalo: Many of its homes are made of mud, rock, and plant fiber; chickens, ducks, and goats seem to be wandering around everywhere; and just behind the village center, where the land slopes into the river valley, there are acres of verdant farmland, which pop against the surrounding brown Earth. It was as if a patchy green quilt had been laid across the valley.  Worldwide, agriculture is the number one threat to biodiversity. To meet the rising global demand for food, agrobusinesses often clear natural habitats for crops and livestock. But here in Maroamalo, farming is actually helping keep the forest intact. Only about one in three people in Madagascar have access to electricity, and even fewer people use natural gas. That’s why nearly everyone cooks with either simple firewood or, in more urban areas, charcoal — a carbon-rich fuel source produced from tree branches. Around cities like Toliara, making charcoal is how many people earn money to pay for food, school supplies, and medical bills. One 110-pound (50 kg) bag sells for $2 to $3. In Madagascar, that’s enough to buy a few meals. Charcoal production was once common among villages in the region like Maroamalo, said Nanie Ratsifandrihamanana, who leads WWF’s work in Madagascar. That’s one reason why the river basin has lost so many of its trees. Shifting cultivation, better known as slash-and-burn agriculture, further eroded the forests here. People would burn one plot of forest to clear the way for crops, and then, once the soil was exhausted and weeds took over, do the same thing in another. Across nearly all of Madagascar, and much of Africa, these are among the two largest forces that raze forests. WWF has long been aware of these problems. So, more than a decade ago, staff from the organization began talking with communities here about how they could earn money without cutting trees. This idea had appeal. Speaking with me under the shade of a large neem tree in Maroamalo, members of the village said they, too, had seen the problems that deforestation had caused. Without roots to hold the soil in place, the ground started to erode, making it harder to grow crops, they told me. Losing trees also made the landscape drier and more likely to flood.  Top: A fishing boat known as a pirogue transports bags of charcoal in a lagoon in southwest Madagascar. Bottom left: An aerial view of the village of Maroamalo. Top right: Green farmland in the background of Maroamalo. Garth Cripps for Vox. WWF later worked with villages along the river — which are now part of the protected area — to build out economies that don’t exploit the remaining tracts of forest. And in Maroamalo, that economy was vegetable farming, as counterintuitive as this approach may seem.  Instead of only growing staples like cassava and corn, the village would cultivate a wide variety of vegetables to sell in Toliara. WWF would provide seeds and training on how to farm the crops more efficiently and without burning and taking up more space in the forest. They’d also help connect farmers to buyers in the city, including hotels. The idea was that if people could earn more money from farming, they wouldn’t need to clear forests for charcoal.  And that’s exactly what’s happening. Top left: Many homes in Maroamalo are made of stone, mud, and plant fiber, like those shown here. Top right: A forest patroller in the village of Ifanato scans the trees for signs of lemurs. Bottom left: Maroamalo farmer Mme Lalao in her home. Bottom right: Residents of another village called Ambiky plant saplings like this one to restore the forest in the protected area. Garth Cripps for Vox. Later that morning, Mme Lalao, a resident of Maroamalo who oversees farming in the village, walked me through the vegetable fields. She showed me ten or so different crops — including eggplant, cabbage, and onions — all planted in neat rows, like what you might see in California.  Nearly everyone in Maroamalo now works in agriculture, she said, which has grown into the main economy here. One vegetable farmer can earn about $21 per month, according to Mercie Ramilanajoroharivelo, a WWF employee who works with the communities. That’s far more than people typically make from selling charcoal, Ramilanajoroharivelo told me.  “We didn’t have the agriculture skills before, so people would go into the forest for charcoal,” Lalao said that morning. “But now they are working here.” Creating new economies only goes so far in protecting the forests and lemurs of Amoron’i Onilahy. While villagers inside the park now seldom bake charcoal or burn the forest, people who migrate here from other areas are still cutting trees. This is a common problem in Madagascar. When deforestation, droughts, and floods make it hard to farm or find wood in one area, people move to another in search of a better life. And climate change is making those sorts of moves more common.  “If you’ve lost everything, you migrate to the places where you can get resources for free,” said Charlie Gardner, a researcher and writer who studied conservation in Madagascar. “That’s two places: the coast where you can do beach seining, or the forest where you can produce charcoal. Things like charcoal production are a livelihood of last resort.”  That means that to keep the trees in Amoron’i Onilahy standing, the local communities still need to monitor the forest for woodcutting.  Later that day, after spending the morning in Maroamalo, I traveled along the dirt road deeper into the protected area to a village called Mahaleotse. Here, the forest was more impressive. It had bigger trees, denser undergrowth, and lots of life. On a walk in the woods that night, I saw chameleons hiding in the trees; fruit bats flying overhead; and, of course, hissing cockroaches (which do, I confirmed, actually hiss).  The next morning, around sunrise, I met up with a group of men from Mahaleotse known as polisin’ala, or forest rangers. Villages in Amoron’i Onilahy that work with WWF have a team of paid patrollers. They walk the forest 10 times each month, receiving about $2 per patrol from WWF. If they spot illegal woodcutting, they’ll try to stop it and report the infraction back to their community and environmental authorities. In some cases, the perpetrator will have to pay a fine.   It’s a complicated job. Outsiders who come here to cut wood are often desperate for money, but local villagers don’t want to lose the surrounding forest and the benefits it provides. “It was their decision to destroy their own forest, so that doesn’t mean they get to destroy ours,” Renama Zatompo Mahinty, one of the patrollers in Mahaleotse, said of migrants from outside villages. “If I tear my own T-shirt, that doesn’t give me the right to take someone else’s.” While there was still a morning chill in the air, I followed the men on a patrol. A ranger named Ramilison Roland paused in front of a large fig tree a few minutes into the walk and pointed up. Through a tangle of twigs and leaves, I saw four ring-tailed lemurs snuggled together on a branch. They were wrapped in each other’s fluffy black-and-white tails and hardly moving, because, as Roland said, they had just woken up.  Ring-tailed lemurs are endangered, yet, in just an hour that morning, we saw two different troops of them — a sign that something here is working.  These rangers are paid, but they told me they’d still surveil the forest without financial support. The benefits of trees are too important to lose — building materials for homes and schools and a lower chance of droughts, flooding, and erosion. “It’s not really a matter of money,” Roland said that morning. “We have advantages of protecting the forest, not only for us, but for the future generation.”  Madagascar is among the most challenging places on Earth for wildlife conservation. Political unrest hampers the flow of foreign aid, weakens law enforcement, and disrupts tourism, which is a vehicle to fund environmental protection. Poor governance also deepens poverty. And poverty leaves people with little choice but to depend on activities that erode the forest. Those are some of the reasons why a lot of non-governmental organization (NGO) projects fail, as I wrote in October.  But I’m convinced this one is succeeding.  Villagers in Amoron’i Onilahy told me that, by most measures, the landscape here is improving; there’s more forest, more lemurs, and more water. Data from WWF is limited and more mixed. The group’s satellite analysis shows that deforestation fell dramatically within the park between 2015 and 2020, rose again between 2021 and 2023, and then dropped once more in 2024. Amoron’i Onilahyn hasn’t lost any forest cover this year through June, the most recent months of data, WWF says. (WWF has not measured natural forest recovery.)  The density of ring-tailed and sifaka lemurs, meanwhile, has improved since 2003, according to the group.  To be clear, a lot of this success would be hard to replicate elsewhere in Madagascar. Amoron’i Onilahy has benefited from decades of investment from WWF. That’s rare, said Gardner. Donors tend to be drawn to projects that sound new and exciting rather than funding the same activities for years and years, he said. Plus, the park sits atop an aquifer; in some places, freshwater literally gushes from the ground. That makes large-scale farming possible here. Elsewhere, it’s just too dry.  What’s also worth pointing out is that strategies to restrict charcoal production in Amoron’i Onilahy don’t quell demand for it nationwide. If people stop cutting trees in this forest, they might just do it elsewhere.  Yet, Amoron’i Onilahy does offer important lessons on how to help conservation succeed in other challenging parts of the world. Investing in non-exploitative economies is essential, even if building businesses doesn’t sound like “conservation.” Even more important is that local communities lead the work themselves and don’t forever rely on external organizations like WWF for help, said Ranaivo Rasolofoson, a researcher at the University of Toronto and an expert on forest conservation in Madagascar.  Large environmental NGOs don’t have a great track record of yielding control to people who live in the environments they’re trying to protect. WWF, for its part, has made some grave mistakes that put conservation at conflict with human rights. But here, the communities are choosing how they want to conserve the forest, and WWF is just there to provide support.  “They are responsible for what they do and what they decide,” Ratsifandrihamanana said of the local communities. “We really want them to be in charge, to take charge.” From Mahaleotse, we drove to another village, stopping along the way at a shrine to Saint Theresa. It consisted of a short statue of Theresa inside a rock cutout on the side of a cliff, just above a small spring-fed pool. Catholicism is the largest Christian denomination in Madagascar, and ardent observers, I was told, will sometimes make pilgrimages to this spot. It was here that I saw the sifaka, which was a spiritual experience in its own way.  I first encountered these animals in a BBC nature show more than two decades ago. They were mesmerizing, flying from tree to tree with incredible speed, like ping-pong balls bouncing between paddles. I still hear David Attenborough’s voice in my head when I think of them.  Back then, I imagined that wildlife in a place like this lived — as nature shows made it seem — within vast stretches of wilderness, far from human life. Yet, that’s not how these animals really exist, and it never has been.  I came face-to-face with this critically endangered lemur at a roadside shrine between two villages. Humans and animals share the landscape here, so it’s only logical that, for conservation to work, it must consider the needs of both.

Alaska Sued Over Aerial Hunting of Bears to Protect Caribou

By Steve Gorman(Reuters) -Environmental groups sued Alaska's wildlife authorities on Monday seeking to halt a predator control plan that lets game...

(Reuters) -Environmental groups sued Alaska's wildlife authorities on Monday seeking to halt a predator control plan that lets game wardens hunt down unlimited numbers of bears from helicopters over a vast area roamed by a protected caribou herd.The groups accuse the Board of Game of reinstating the program without adequately accounting for how it will affect grizzly and black bear populations, violating wildlife conservation provisions of Alaska's constitution.Their suit, filed in state district court in Anchorage, said state fish and game agents killed 175 grizzlies and five black bears since 2023, under two earlier versions of the program struck down by courts.State wildlife officials have denied that their efforts to protect the caribou endanger bear populations."We are trying to rebuild the caribou herd, but we're not going to jeopardize long-term sustainability of bears in doing so," state Fish and Game Commissioner Douglas Vincent-Lang said in a statement when the new regulations were approved in July. LAWSUIT SEEKS TO BLOCK AERIAL BEAR HUNTINGFriday's lawsuit was brought by the Center for Biological Diversity and the Alaska Wildlife Alliance against Vincent-Lang, along with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and its policy-setting Board of Game.The plaintiffs are seeking a court order blocking a renewal of aerial bear hunting before its next round in the spring of 2026, with the arrival of caribou calving season and the emergence of mother bears from dens with newborn cubs.The program was designed to curb bear predation that state wildlife officials blame for diminishing the Mulchatna caribou population and thwarting herd recovery efforts.The herd is now estimated at fewer than 15,000, well below a goal of 30,000 to 80,000 deemed necessary to ensure numbers sufficient for traditional hunting and subsistence purposes.The number of bears in the region is less clear, said the lawsuit, citing a potential range between 2,000 and 7,000 grizzlies it says the department has estimated for southwestern Alaska as a whole, based on outdated studies.The department gave no black bear population estimates, it said.GROUPS SAY BEAR CONTROL APPROACH IS MISGUIDEDEnvironmental groups said the bear-control program reflects a misguided approach that has long maximized protection of big-game species at the expense of bears and other predators needed for a healthy balance in the ecosystem. "The Department of Fish and Game wants to turn Alaska into a game farm and treat bears and wolves as disposable," said Cooper Freeman, the Alaska director of the Center for Biological Diversity.Contrary to state wildlife officials' assertions that bear preying on caribou calves are the biggest threat to herd recovery, Freeman said disease and lack of food resources worsened by climate change were key factors in their decline.State officials also say the bear control program focused on an area of about 1,200 sq miles (3,100 sq km), but environmentalists say the predator control plan applies to 40,000 sq miles (104,000 sq km) adjoining wildlife refuges.(Reporting by Steve Gorman in Los Angeles; Editing by Clarence Fernandez)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.

Air quality alert for Deschutes County Wednesday

An air quality alert was reported by the National Weather Service on Monday at 5:15 p.m. in effect until Wednesday at 3 p.m. for Deschutes County.

An air quality alert was reported by the National Weather Service on Monday at 5:15 p.m. in effect until Wednesday at 3 p.m. for Deschutes County."Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has issued an Air Quality Advisory. until 3 p.m. Wednesday. A Smoke Air Quality Advisory has been issued. Wildfires burning in the region combined with forecasted conditions will cause air quality to reach unhealthy levels. Pollutants in smoke can cause burning eyes, runny nose, aggravate heart and lung diseases, and aggravate other serious health problems. Limit outdoor activities and keep children indoors if it is smoky. Please follow medical advice if you have a heart or lung condition," comments the weather service.Guidance for air quality alerts: Insights from the weather serviceWhen an air quality alert pops up on the radar, deciphering its implications is crucial. These alerts, issued by the weather service, come with straightforward yet essential guidance to ensure your safety:Prioritize indoor stay:If it's within your means, stay indoors, especially if you have respiratory issues, health concerns, or fall within the senior or child demographics.Trim outdoor activities:When venturing outside is unavoidable, restrict your time outdoors solely to essential activities. Reducing exposure is paramount.Reduce pollution contributors:Be conscious of activities that contribute to pollution, such as driving cars, using gas-powered lawnmowers, or relying on motorized vehicles. Curtail their use during air quality alerts.A no to open burning:Refrain from igniting fires with debris or any other materials during air quality alerts. Such practices only contribute to the problem of poor air quality.Stay well-informed:Stay updated of developments by tuning in to NOAA Weather Radio or your preferred weather news source. Being well-informed empowers you to make informed decisions regarding outdoor pursuits during air quality alerts.Focus on respiratory health:If you have respiratory problems or underlying health conditions, exercise extra caution. These conditions can increase your vulnerability to adverse effects from poor air quality.By adhering to the advice from the weather service, you can enhance your safety during air quality alerts while reducing your exposure to potentially harmful pollutants. Stay aware, stay protected, and make your health a top priority.If you purchase a product or register for an account through a link on our site, we may receive compensation. By using this site, you consent to our User Agreement and agree that your clicks, interactions, and personal information may be collected, recorded, and/or stored by us and social media and other third-party partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

Data centers meet resistance over environmental concerns as AI boom spreads in Latin America

An expert describes how communities in some of the world’s driest areas are demanding transparency as secretive governments court billions in foreign investmentThis Q&A originally appeared as part of The Guardian’s TechScape newsletter. Sign up for this weekly newsletter here.The data centers that power the artificial intelligence boom are beyond enormous. Their financials, their physical scale, and the amount of information contained within are so massive that the idea of stopping their construction can seem like opposing an avalanche in progress. Continue reading...

This Q&A originally appeared as part of The Guardian’s TechScape newsletter. Sign up for this weekly newsletter here.The data centers that power the artificial intelligence boom are beyond enormous. Their financials, their physical scale, and the amount of information contained within are so massive that the idea of stopping their construction can seem like opposing an avalanche in progress.Despite the scale and momentum of the explosion of data centers, resistance is mounting in the United States, in the United Kingdom, and in Latin America, where data centers have been built in some of the world’s driest areas. Local opposition in all three regions has often focused on the environmental impacts and resource consumption of the gargantuan structures.Paz Peña is a researcher and fellow with the Mozilla Foundation who studies the social and environmental impact of technology, particularly data centers and particularly in Latin America. She spoke to the Guardian at the Mozilla festival in Barcelona about how communities in Latin America are going to court to pry information away from governments and corporations that would much rather keep it secret.The Guardian: Could you describe your research?Paz Peña: Basically, my research is about the positions of governments on data centers and what the promises are behind them. What are the relationships that governments today in Latin America have with big tech? There’s a lot of lobbying activities around infrastructure and data centers from big tech to governments in Latin America.Chile and Brazil are the two top countries working on data centers today in Latin America, and Chile is one of the countries in Latin America that has a lot of resistance against data centers.What the governments are doing – I’m talking about leftwing governments … what they are looking for is foreign investment for data centers in their countries. The amounts are great. It’s a public policy to attract [data centers] with what they call national investment plans. They’re doing tax exemptions, for example, in Brazil, which is a huge controversy back there.In the case of Chile, what they’re doing is actually trying to deregulate the environmental assessments that data centers are going through.Carving out an exception for them?Peña: Exactly. There’s no specific category of environmental impact assessment for data centers in Latin America. In the case of Chile right now, they are assessed on the diesel that they use, because they use diesel generators for energy. It’s huge amounts of diesel.The government actually made an administrative change in the environmental system evaluation, where the threshold that data centers need to achieve on diesel to pass an environmental assessment changed. Magically, that means that data centers are not going through environmental impact assessments in Chile any more, which was the reason why communities understood what were the impacts of data centers. They don’t have that information right now.What we’re seeing is that governments are creating opportunities for investments but not creating rules and regulations for the environmental impacts of data centers, rules about diesel use, energy, and water.Without that information on data centers, do you see that the opposition to them is confused or hobbled because they don’t know what it is they’re opposing? Or does it incite more opposition because of the feeling of not being told what’s really going on?In the case of Chile, I would say that the local activism is quite angry with the leftwing government. The promises of this government was to be an environmental, sustainable exercise of power, right? President [Gabriel] Boric actually said this, that he would form an ecological government. Nobody really believes that. But they put that in the discourse. So you have to pay your words, right?People are really mad. I would say for two reasons. One is that they don’t have the transparency to understand what is going on in their neighborhoods. The second thing is they are super mad about it because the national data center plan, which is, again, a foreign investment plan, is presented for companies – but not necessarily for communities. When they actually publicly presented this plan, which was about two months ago, all the industry was present, but super few people from communities. Communities felt like they were being left out of the conversation.If there’s a data center planned for my neighborhood and I oppose it, what should I do?In a community, you will find people that understand what a data center is and some people will not have an idea of what it is. So when they have heard, they probably heard by two sources: a government’s evaluation system or the media. So once they have heard about this, the main problem they have is, again, transparency. Because corporate secrecy is still super present around the resources that these data centers need – energy, water, et cetera.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe problem that we have seen this in Latin America – there’s an incredible example in Uruguay about this – is that governments actually agree with this corporate secrecy. When a community asks for more information, the government is saying: it’s corporate secrecy. We cannot give you that information. So in general, what we are seeing is that communities are considering going to court to actually ask for that information. Because in Latin America, there is an inter-American agreement called the Escazu agreement, which is an environmental agreement about transparency, saying that a government cannot hide this incredibly important information for people.In the case of Uruguay, they went to court, because there was a Google data center being built in Uruguay in Montevideo, the capital. A couple of years ago, they’re going through an incredible drought where the people in Montevideo had to shower with buckets of water.Meanwhile, the government announced that this Google data center, where the amounts of water needed would be immense. So people were asking if this water, this very scarce resource, should be going to Google or to people. This is a fair question.They didn’t know exactly how much water Google would need. So they asked the government. The government said no. The environmental minister said: no, you cannot have that information because it’s corporate secrecy by Google. So they went to court, and they won, actually. The court quoted the Eskasu agreement.When a community takes a public stance saying we want more information about this and that, and social and environmental impacts, the impression is that they are opposing progress, technological progress, economic progress. Corporations, and I will say, sadly, governments – they see communities as a kind of roadblock.The first thing people need is information, and the first hurdle that they confront is the lack of information. So I would say that the first step they need to take is to find any source of information, and sometimes go to court. The majority of these actions are not successful, but they are sometimes the only way that corporations but also, sadly, governments give the information to the people.If you lose the fight, what should you do then if you’re a member of this community?For some communities in Chile that I interviewed, big tech companies weren’t actually the enemy, which is very interesting. Data center plans were seen as sort of an opportunity to raise the bar of environmental measures, because the people in those communities are surrounded by so many bad corporate actors who pollute a lot and don’t even care. It’s not necessarily a movement against big tech. Not yet, I would say. Maybe later.For now, these communities see a tech company planning a data center as not as a bad actor, actually as a strategic opportunity to raise the bar of environmental care and measures in their own neighborhoods. Big tech companies have this necessity of being the good player in the world, or at least being seen that way, so there is an opportunity for people to say, ‘Big tech has raised the bar of environmental care. So let’s try to put some sort of pressure to the other bad actors.’The enormous amounts of money and the physical scale of these things are so huge. They seem to operate on this inhumanly large level. How do people believe in their own opposition to these projects? They’re so massive that it kind of seems like you’re just saying no to an earthquake.In general, people who are working against data centers are people who have a background working on environmental issues. It’s people really used to the big fight. It’s people that really understand how difficult it is to deal with corporations and with governments.

Environmental activists battle nurdles on Galveston shores, calling for regulation

Environment Texas and the Turtle Island Restoration Network held a beach cleanup in Galveston on Nov. 7 to help rid the shore of nurdles. The groups also recently asked state leaders for more nurdle regulation since they said the pellets can be a threat to wildlife and people.

Julianna Washburn/HPMVolunteer Laura Leavitt works alongside another volunteer to collect nurdles at a beach cleanup in Galveston on Nov. 7, 2025.On Nov. 7, Laura Leavitt knelt on the Galveston shore beside her best friend, picking tiny bits of plastic out of the sand. The two friends were among around 20 other volunteers working piece by piece to help rid the beach of nurdles — small plastic pellets used to create plastic products such as soda bottles or cottage cheese containers. "What we don’t take care of circles back to us, and I think just from picking up a piece of trash in your neighborhood, you’re contributing," Leavitt said. The group of volunteers was part of Environment Texas and the Turtle Island Restoration Network's Galveston cleanup. Along with continued nurdle beach cleanups, the groups also recently asked state leaders for more nurdle regulation since they said the pellets can be a threat to wildlife and people. "We’re not asking for plastic production to be stopped. We’re asking for regulations to be in place to keep it safe for our environment," Joanie Steinhaus, who is the ocean program director for the Turtle Island Restoration Network, said. There are 36 facilities in Texas that produce nurdles, with three facilities along Galveston Bay, according to Turtle Island. Steinhaus said companies transport the microplastics to other facilities by truck or train in order to make the plastic products. Steinhaus said since nurdles are lightweight, when they spill during manufacturing or transport, they escape into the environment and eventually work their way onto Texas beaches. On Nov. 7, volunteers collected 1,216 nurdles. Since 2020, Steinhaus said Turtle Island has collected over 16,000 nurdles on Galveston beaches, which she said is a concern for wildlife and humans since nurdles attach to toxins in the water. "If you happen to eat fish that’s ingested nurdles, you’re not eating the plastic nurdles, but you could be eating the toxins that work their way into the flesh of the fish," Steinhaus said. "If there’s fertilizers or pesticides or chemicals, gas, oil that’s released out into the gulf and it attaches to these nurdles, then that’s not good for us to have in our bodies." Julianna Washburn/HPMA volunteer holds the nurdles they collected at a beach cleanup in Galveston on Nov. 7, 2025.Steinhaus said environmental groups across Texas, along with charter boat captains and businesses, have called on Gov. Greg Abbott to direct the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to include nurdles in its updated surface water quality standards, a process that is expected to be finalized in 2026. "That would give [the facilities] some regulations, some push if there’s a discharge, if there’s a train spill or a truck spill," Steinhaus said. At its Oct. 23 meeting, the Galveston City Council unanimously passed a resolution calling upon the state to enact policies to protect the city from plastic pellets and other forms of pre-production plastic pollution. Only one day before the beach cleanup, however, Abbott announced that Formosa Plastics will open a new facility in Jackson County, near the Matagorda Bay, located southwest of Galveston. "Texas leads the nation in chemical production and exports," Abbott said in the news release. "This $150 million investment by Formosa Plastics will grow good-paying jobs for Texans, expand economic opportunity in Jackson County, and further our state's manufacturing leadership." In 2017, a lawsuit was filed against Formosa Plastics, with claims that the company violated the Clean Water Act by discharging nurdles into the bay at its Point Comfort facility. The lawsuit was settled, and Formosa Plastics agreed to prevent the further discharge of plastics. Steinhaus said she thought the announcement of a new facility was unfortunate, since it will add to the number of existing plastic-producing facilities. "We don’t need more, we need less,” Steinhaus said. “We can’t recycle our way. We need to stop our consumption of plastic because there’s so much plastic in the world." Abbott and Formosa Plastics did not respond to a request for comment on nurdle production regulations.

Cane toads are hopping towards the Pilbara, but a water-free containment zone could stop them

Cane toads will reach Broome in the next couple of years. Creating a waterless “containment zone” is the only way to stop them pillaging the Pilbara.

It is early evening in Australia’s top end, and a hunter stalks its prey. Keenly alert, the northern quoll follows the sound of rustling in the leaf litter. It must be some kind of frog, the small carnivorous marsupial decides, and pounces. But the quoll is seized by an immediate pain in the mouth, and drops its prey. It’s already too late. The rustling was not a frog, but a poisonous cane toad. The toad’s toxin has sprayed into the quoll’s mouth and within seconds the quoll is vomiting. Within minutes it is incapacitated and spasming as its heart fails. And 20 minutes later the quoll is dead. This scene has played out countless times in the 90 years since invasive cane toads were released on the Queensland coast and hopped west to Australia’s tropical north. They were originally native to South America, and brought to Australia to control beetle pests in sugarcane. And they kill not only quolls and their kin, but other predators such as freshwater crocodiles, goannas, and snakes. What do we have to lose? The cane toad is one of Australia’s worst feral animal invaders. They have nearly completed their conquest of northern Australia and in the next couple of years they are expected to reach Broome on the west coast, and head south. Our work shows that without intervention, the destruction will continue, as toads invade Australia’s unique Pilbara region in the north of western Australia. The Pilbara is an ancient rocky landscape, with some of the oldest geology in the world. Many species are found here and nowhere else. With abundant waterholes and rivers in stunning rocky gorges, the Pilbara would be perfect habitat for cane toads. Our research outlines what will happen if toads arrive in this unique landscape. It finds that with no intervention, cane toads will likely invade a further 27 million hectares, including almost all of the Pilbara, and spread further south towards Shark Bay. A blow to animals and culture Cane toads arriving in the Pilbara would cause populations of about 25 species of reptiles and mammals to crash in numbers. These include ten species of goanna, nine small marsupial predators like the Kaluta and northern quoll, three snakes, two blue-tongue skinks and one bat. For endangered northern quolls and vulnerable ghost bats, the Pilbara is the last toad-free stronghold. Several endemic goannas, blue tongue skinks and marsupial predators will likely join the threatened species list. Many of these species are culturally important to the Traditional Owners of Country for stories, songlines and bush tucker. Toad invasion of the Northern Territory, for example, led to lost bush tucker such as goanna, crocodile, blue-tongue skink. It also meant increased reliance on store-bought food, and a loss of skills and knowledge around hunting activities where Elders spent time with younger generations. Overall, it’s a bleak prospect if toads spread into the Pilbara. The good news is that there is an opportunity to avoid this future. A wicked problem Many people have attempted to solve the cane toad problem, via cracking its genetic code, teaching native animals not to eat toads and even putting the creautres on the menu. None of these methods have stopped the toad invasion across the tropical north of Australia. There has simply been too much permanent water in the landscape that toads use as habitat. But the situation is not the same in Western Australia. South of Broome, toads will hit a natural “bottleneck” where the Great Sandy Desert meets the ocean, on Karajarri and Nyangumarta country. This narrow stretch of naturally dry country represents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to halt the toads’ progress further down the west coast. Plumbing, not rocket science Water is the toads’ Achilles heel. In the dry season, toads must sit in water every two to four days to stay alive. In the bottleneck between the Kimberley and the Pilbara, almost all permanent water sources are human made. And these create a connected watery tendril for invasion. Making these water sources inaccessible to toads by creating a “Toad Containment Zone” means toads cannot use these as stepping stones through this dry part of the country. A collective of scientists, pastoralists and Traditional Owners has proposed to create this zone by toad-proofing cattle water sources (by upgrading ground-level water sources to tanks and troughs) in a 150 kilometre long by 50 kilometre wide stretch of country. This solution would create a “toad fire-break”. The containment zone covers three times the distance that toads travel each year, so every wet season toads will infiltrate the north of the zone but as the water dries up, they will perish in the dry season. Bang for buck Effective containment would prevent toads from accessing the water-abundant Pilbara and beyond, protecting 27 million hectares of Western Australia. This is not a new idea – it’s been subject to 15 years of scientific rigour that shows preventing toads accessing water is the most effective way to stop them. It’s also one of the cheapest solutions: managing pest species after they have established is expensive and ineffective, and we are much better off preventing their spread. Judy Dunlop receives funding from Rio Tinto, BHP, Western Australia's Department of Water and Environmental Regulation, and the Skip Foundation.Ben Phillips receives funding from the Skip Foundation, the Australian Research Council, the WA Department of Energy and Economic Diversification, BHP Social Investments. Tim Dempster receives funding from the WA Department of Energy and Economic Diversification, The Hermon Slade Foundation, and the Skip Foundation.

Hello Houston (November 10, 2025)

Today: We discuss the United States' declining immigrant population, talk with legendary trumpeter Wynton Marsalis, learn about the award-winning film “Charliebird,” and much more.

Hello Houston Today: We discuss the United States’ declining immigrant population, talk with legendary trumpeter Wynton Marsalis, learn about the award-winning film “Charliebird,” and much more. Hello Houston: Where Houston Talks!On today's Hello Houston, we begin the show by talking with University of Houston political science professor and Party Politics co-host Brandon Rottinghaus, who discusses a possible end to the government shutdown, U.S. Rep. Al Green announcing he’s running for Texas's 18th Congressional District, and more. In the show's first hour, the Baker Institute's Bill King discusses the shrinking immigrant population in the U.S. and what impact this could have on America's economic outlook. Also, legendary trumpeter Wynton Marsalis tells us about his upcoming concert at the Hobby Center with the acclaimed Jazz at Lincoln Center Orchestra. Then, Ernie, Celeste, and Frank kick off the second hour of the show by discussing Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's lawsuit against Galveston ISD for refusing to display the Ten Commandments inside its school's classrooms. Plus, we hear from Daniel Cohan, a professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Rice University, who discusses the United States' lack of participation in the COP30 climate summit in Brazil, and Samantha Smart, the writer and star of the award-winning film Charliebird, joins us to tell us more about the film, which was filmed in the Houston area.  

I discovered a new Australian native bee, but there are still hundreds we need to identify

The discovery of a horned native bee that pollinates a rare plant highlights how little we know about Australian pollinators.

The female of the species has devil-like black horns, and a taste for extremely rare pollen. But until now, this Australian native bee has never been officially named or identified. My discovery of Megachile (Hackeriapis) lucifer, underscores the lack of knowledge and investment in Australia’s unique native bees. Whilst considerable funding and attention has been focused on the introduced European honey bee, Apis mellifera, there are still hundreds of native bees that are yet to be identified and named. How was this bee found? This fascinating new megachile (or leaf cutter) bee was first discovered while on a surveying trip in the Bremer Ranges in the goldfields region of Western Australia in 2019. I was conducting surveys for pollinators – such as bees, other insects, flies and wasps – of a critically endangered plant called Bremer marianthus, or Marianthus aquilonaris, which is only known in this region. Sadly, as is common for many threatened plant species, the pollinators for this straggly shrub with blue-tinged white flowers were completely unknown. One of the native bees collected on this visit immediately caught my attention because the female had large devil-like horns protruding from her clypeus – the broad plate on the front of a bee’s head. When I investigated, it was clear this wasn’t a species that had been found before. Whilst some native bees have horns or prongs, none have the large and slightly curved horns of this one. Comparing it with museum specimens, along with DNA barcoding, confirmed this species was new to collectors and to science. DNA barcoding also revealed a male native bee I had collected at the site was her partner, but he lacked horns. This is the opposite of the situation in much of the animal kingdom, where the males are more likely to be amoured. Bringer of light When you discover a new species, you have the honour of choosing a name. The first new species of native bee I “described” (or scientifically identified) in 2022, Leioproctus zephyr, is named after my dog, Zephyr. For this new species, the horns meant the name Lucifer was a perfect choice. Lucifer is also Latin for “light bringer”, and I hope this new species brings to light the wonders of our native bees. Australia has more than 2,000 species of native bees. They help keep our ecosystems healthy and play a crucial role in pollinating wildflowers. We need to understand native bees This new native bee, Megachile lucifer, is only one of an estimated 500 native bees that are not described. Far more attention has been given to the introduced European honey bee Apis mellifera. Whilst the honey bee is important for crop pollination, this species is not threatened, and can in fact harm our native bees. The truth is honeybees compete with native animals for food and habitat, disrupt native pollination systems and pose a serious biosecurity threat to our honey and pollination industries. Currently, there no requirement to survey for native bees in areas about to be mined, farmed or developed. Even if they are found, any species that has not been officially identified it has no conservation standing, which is one reason why taxonomic research is so important. Protect the pollinators Megachile lucifer was collected on a flowering mallee plant that attracted thousands of native bees and other insects. In subsequent years of surveying this site, the mallee was not flowering, Megachile lucifer was not seen, and far fewer insects were recorded. With no monitoring of native bees, we also don’t know how their populations are faring in response to threatening processes, like climate change. More interest and investment into the taxonomy, conservation and ecology of native bees, means we can protect both them and the rare and precious plants they pollinate. Kit Prendergast received funding from the Atlas of Living Australia, with a Biodiversity Mobilisation Grant and Goldfields Environmental Management Group Grant. The surveys were conducted as an ecological consultant, subcontracted to Botanica Consulting, who were commissioned by Audalia Resources Limited.

New York approves controversial gas pipeline

The state of New York has approved a contentious natural gas pipeline that is expected to bring fuel to New York City residents but is drawing fire from some Democrats. On Friday, New York’s Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) issued a permit allowing for the construction of the Northeast Supply Enhancement (NESE) pipeline. This vessel would bring...

The state of New York has approved a contentious natural gas pipeline that is expected to bring fuel to New York City residents but is drawing fire from some Democrats. On Friday, New York’s Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) issued a permit allowing for the construction of the Northeast Supply Enhancement (NESE) pipeline. This vessel would bring gas from Pennsylvania to Brooklyn, Queens and Long Island.  In a written statement, Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) cited the state's energy needs and said it is taking an “all-of-the-above” approach.  “As Governor, a top priority is making sure the lights and heat stay on for all New Yorkers as we face potential energy shortages downstate as soon as next summer,” Hochul said.   “And while I have expressed an openness to natural gas, I have also been crystal clear that all proposed projects must be reviewed impartially by the required agencies to determine compliance with state and federal laws. I am comfortable that in approving the permits, including a water quality certification, for the NESE application, the DEC did just that,” she added.  The decision comes after New York’s grid operator recently warned that the state could soon face reliability challenges.  The permit’s approval move met with pushback from some Democrats in the state.  “I am profoundly disappointed by New York State’s decision to approve the proposed Northeast Supply Enhancement (NESE) fracked-gas pipeline. This project was rejected three times in the past for failing to meet the state’s own water-quality standards, and nothing about the project has changed,” said Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) in a written statement.  "The NESE pipeline will cut through sensitive marine ecosystems off Staten Island and the Rockaway Peninsula, potentially dredging up contaminated sediments that contain arsenic, mercury, lead, and PCBs. It threatens coastal economies that depend on clean water, recreation, and tourism, while exposing nearby communities to unnecessary health and safety risks,” he added.  A group of 17 New York Democrats, including Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, recently wrote a letter to the governor and DEC commissioner expressing “concern” about the pipeline. The state’s decision comes after Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said earlier this year that Hochul expressed “willingness to move forward on critical pipeline capacity.”  That comment came as Hochul announced that she was able to save an offshore wind project by working with the Trump administration.   However, her office said at the time that “no deal on any natural gas pipeline was reached.” The permit approval comes after the state rejected the pipeline in 2020.  It said in a letter accompanying the new approval that while New York usually requires six feet of depth for pipelines in its waters, it has now determined that four feet is acceptable for this project. “The basis for this determination is such a depth further minimizes total suspended sediment, as well as the absence along the Project route of (i) electromagnetic fields associated with high voltage transmission cables and (ii) seafloor areas heavily fished by bottomtending fishing gear,” it said.  The pipeline is expected to run through New Jersey, as well as the Raritan Bay and Lower New York Bay to approximately three miles off the coast of Queens’s Rockaway Peninsula.

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.