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

Michigan OKs Landmark Regulations That Push Up-Front Costs to Data Centers

Michigan regulators have adopted landmark standards for the booming data center industry with a plan they say tries to protect residents from subsidizing the industry’s hefty energy use

Michigan regulators on Thursday adopted landmark standards for the booming data center industry with a plan they say tries to protect residents from subsidizing the industry’s hefty energy use.In a 3-0 vote, the Michigan Public Service Commission adopted a rate structure that requires data centers and other energy-intensive industries in Consumers Energy’s territory to sign long-term power contracts with steep penalties for exiting early.The order also requires Consumers to show that data centers will shoulder all costs to build transmission lines, substations and other infrastructure before adding them to the grid.Commission Chair Dan Scripps called it a “balanced approach” that shows Michigan is “open for business from data centers and other large load customers, while also leveraging those potential benefits of the growth … in a way that’s good for all customers.”The deal disappointed some environmentalists, who had pushed for explicit requirements that data center power come from renewable sources. Michigan utilities are legally required to achieve 100% clean energy by 2040. They must detail how they plan to meet that requirement in filings next year.“While the order includes important consumer protection terms, the commission missed an opportunity to emphasize the importance of the state’s climate goals,” said Daniel Abrams, an attorney with the Environmental Law and Policy Center. The rate structure applies to customers whose energy use exceeds 100 megawatts. Data centers are among very few industries that demand that much power. Often, they demand an order of magnitude more.Consumers serves 1.9 million customers across much of the Lower Peninsula. Company spokesperson Matt Johnson said officials are still reviewing Thursday’s order and “its impact on all stakeholders.“Consumers Energy intends to work hard to continue to attract new businesses, including data centers, to Michigan, in a way that benefits everyone and fuels the state’s economic development,” he added.The deal comes amid an uncertain time for the data industry, which is growing fast because of artificial intelligence. Much more energy is needed to power the transformation, but many industry analysts fear rising AI stocks are a bubble and demand for the technology won’t materialize, leaving utilities and ratepayers to pick up the infrastructure tab for failed projects.Hoping to avoid such an outcome, Consumers in February proposed special regulations that would lock data centers into 15-year contracts that guarantee consistent electricity use and require payments even if a facility ceases or downsizes operations mid-contract.The commission’s decision Thursday approves much of that request, with some significant modifications. DTE takes a different approach The other big utility in Michigan, DTE Energy, is taking a different approach.Rather than establishing a blanket rate structure like Consumers, DTE wants to negotiate its first data center contract individually while aiming to avoid public vetting of the deal.Michigan law allows such expedited reviews in cases that would bring no added costs to utility consumers. DTE officials argue adding the Stargate data center to its system will help keep rates down for everyone by spreading fixed costs among more paying customers. “Given the sizable affordability benefits for our customers, as well as the economic impact the project will have, we think moving forward in this fashion makes the most sense,” spokesperson Jill Wilmot said.But DTE officials also stated in its filing that the company expects to spend some $500 million upgrading its transmission system and building a substation to serve the data center. Critics argue the utility is so intentionally vague it is impossible to vet DTE’s claims about affordability.“It’s just highly concerning that they are trying to keep this somewhat private, because there’s so much at stake,” said Bryan Smigielski, a Michigan organizer with the Sierra Club.Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel also opposes DTE’s quest for expedited review, and has requested a thorough vetting of the proposed contract.Members of the Public Service Commission have not decided whether to grant DTE’s request for quick approval, Scripps said.Michigan’s data center electricity rate deliberations come amid a surge of interest from developers looking to take advantage of new tax breaks that could save the industry tens of millions of dollars. Lawmakers last year voted to exempt large data centers from Michigan’s 6% sales and use tax in an effort to lure the industry to Michigan.Beyond the Stargate campus, DTE is in late-stage negotiations for another 3 gigawatts’ worth of data center capacity, while Consumers Energy is nearing deals for three large data centers amounting to a collective 2 gigawatts of power.Developers are also scoping out rural land throughout the southern Lower Peninsula, from the Grand Rapids area to the outskirts of Monroe.The wave of interest could have big implications for water and land use in Michigan. Hyperscale data centers occupy hundreds of acres apiece. Those that use water vapor to cool the servers inside the facilities — the industry’s most common cooling technique — also use large amounts of water.This story was originally published by Bridge Michigan and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Oct. 2025

Iguanas Are Native, Not Invasive, on This Mexican Island, DNA Study Suggests, Rewriting Conservation Ideas

The spiny-tailed iguanas of Clarion Island predate human presence in the Americas by tens of thousands of years, researchers say

Iguanas Are Native, Not Invasive, on This Mexican Island, DNA Study Suggests, Rewriting Conservation Ideas The spiny-tailed iguanas of Clarion Island predate human presence in the Americas by tens of thousands of years, researchers say Sara Hashemi - Daily Correspondent November 7, 2025 1:39 p.m. A spiny-tailed iguana on Clarion Island Daniel Mulcahy The spiny-tailed iguanas on Mexico’s Clarion Island were long thought to have been introduced by humans. But a study published this October in the journal Ecology and Evolution turns that idea on its head. It suggests the lizards predate humans in the Americas—and that they are an endemic, not invasive, species. Clarion Island, the oldest on the remote Revillagigedo Archipelago in the Pacific Ocean, was once covered in prickly-pear cactuses that made it almost impenetrable without a machete, per a statement. That all changed in the 1970s, when the Mexican military set up a base on the island and introduced sheep, pigs and rabbits that ate most of the vegetation. Biologists also assumed the iguanas were introduced by military personnel, because previous surveys of the island had not recorded them. “It was all speculative that they were introduced—no one ever tested it,” Daniel Mulcahy, an evolutionary biologist at the Museum of Natural History in Berlin and the study’s first author, tells the New York Times. Fun fact: Clarion’s unique wildlife Iguanas aren’t the only animals endemic to Clarion Island: It’s home to unique birds, snakes and lizards. It also was once the habitat of the Townsend’s shearwater (Puffinus auricularis), a rare seabird that had its nesting sites decimated by the island’s invasive mammals. The bird is now considered “critically endangered” by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, with just 250 to 999 thought to still live in the wild worldwide, according to a 2018 assessment. Mulcahy tells the outlet that he collected DNA from the iguanas while on a Smithsonian Institution research trip to study snakes more than a decade ago. The DNA materials from the island iguanas didn’t seem to match those of iguanas from the mainland. But he didn’t think to publish those results until a colleague told him the Mexican government planned to exterminate the lizards under the belief that they’re invasive and harming the local ecosystem, he tells the Times. The result was his new study, which compared the mitochondrial DNA of island and mainland iguanas and found that they are genetically distinct from each other. The researchers’ evolutionary analysis found that the two populations likely diverged some 425,000 years ago. Humans, on the other hand, only crossed the Bering Land Bridge to the Americas roughly 15,000 to 25,000 years ago. As such, the island’s iguanas “substantially predate not only the establishment of the navy base on Clarion Island but also human colonization of the Americas,” the researchers write in the paper. This finding, they add, suggests the iguanas dispersed naturally over water—likely on a mat of floating vegetation—to make their way to the island. But that raises another question: How did the Clarion iguanas go unnoticed for so long? The study authors suggest the reptiles probably remained hidden because of the dense vegetation that once covered the island, allowing the skittish animals to hide. The iguanas tend to run away from humans, hiding in rock crevices or burrows. “We posit that the iguanas on Clarion Island were historically elusive and that recent alterations to the vegetation have made them more conspicuous,” they write in the study. Though pigs and sheep have now been eradicated from the island, they write, rabbits remain. So does the environmental destruction wrought by the invasive species, which “significantly altered” the island’s native plants. “This type of work is fundamental to conserving some of the world’s most unique and imperiled diversity,” Rayna Bell, an evolutionary biologist at the California Academy of Sciences who was not involved with the study, tells the New York Times. The study could have important implications for future conservation plans on the island, now that iguanas can be considered native wildlife. The researchers hope their findings bring an end to Clarion Island’s ongoing iguana eradication efforts. “This research fundamentally changes how we view Clarion’s ecology,” the team says to Rob Hutchins at Oceanographic magazine. “The spiny-tailed iguana is not an invader—it’s a survivor.” Get the latest stories in your inbox every weekday.

Birding’s Tragic Blind Spot

Humans love to watch birds in nature. So why do we ignore the lives of the birds destined for our plates? The post Birding’s Tragic Blind Spot appeared first on The Revelator.

Birding is having a moment.  According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, there are more than 90 million birders in this country, making birding one of the most popular recreational activities, second only to walking. Bookstores have embraced this, with recently bestselling bird memoirs by authors Amy Tan and Margaret Renkl, as well as actor Lili Taylor. I too am a birder, though one troubled by a blind spot I see in too many of my fellow enthusiasts. Perhaps this blind spot is a side effect of looking at the world through binoculars. We spend so much time focused on distant birds that we don’t always see the birds closest to us. Like the birds on our plates. Consider the chicken. Globally, more than 80 billion chickens are killed each year, a number so big it borders on the unimaginable. I’ll break it down this way: By the time you finish reading this essay, nearly 18 million birds will have perished. Most chickens never see the sky, never set foot on planet Earth. They are born under artificial lights and die under artificial lights six horrific weeks later. Cage-free chickens may experience a bit more room and possibly a bit of sunshine, but the end result is equally dismal. A few chickens survive. Some are rescued (or stolen, depending on your perspective) from animal warehouses. (And yes, warehouse is a more appropriate term than farm.) In case you’re doubting how these birds differ from the ones we seek and celebrate, you might want to meet a few of them. Odds are, you’ll find an animal sanctuary near you — check the Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries website for a list.  Perhaps you’re near the Woodstock Farm Sanctuary in High Falls, New York, where you can meet Peppermint, rescued from a live kill market, or The Iowa Survivors, 10 of the more than 1,400 chickens collectively saved when an egg facility in Iowa was preparing to kill 140,000 chickens during the darkest days of COVID. On my side of the country, at Tikkun Olam Sanctuary in Southern Oregon, you can meet Scissors, a bird born with a crossed beak, a genetic condition that makes it nearly impossible for her to eat like the other birds — a death sentence nearly anywhere but at a sanctuary. And if you hold Scissors in your arms as I have (she loves to be held), you might wonder how such a beautiful bird can be viewed by so many as disposable. If she hadn’t found her home at the sanctuary, she wouldn’t be alive today, deemed too much trouble to feed in reward for her eggs. As for turkeys, the United States has a national holiday to blame for the more than 200 million turkey deaths each year. And even ducks, for whom we happily make way in Boston, died to the tune of 28 million in 2024. How do we remove these birding blind spots? The first step is to acknowledge that all birds have equal value, including those we eat and those we may consider pests (such as starlings and pigeons). A bird’s relative scarcity on this planet need not be a prerequisite of its perceived value. Similarly, just because a bird species is in no danger of extinction does not make it any less valuable. Second, I encourage birders to reconsider the food on their plates. This may seem a tall ask; I too once devoured chicken wings and nuggets. But I can state now that the plant-based alternatives are just as good and carry none of that guilty aftertaste. There are also many environmental benefits to giving up chicken: chicken manure’s nitrous oxide emissions are a major contributor to global warming, and the nitrogen itself ends up in waterways, resulting in dead zones and countless numbers of dead fish. And then there’s this: If every birder in the United States gave up eating chicken, more than 2 billion chickens would be spared this year alone. In a world where we often feel powerless against the wanton destruction of environmental protections, we still have immense power at our disposal simply by changing the way we eat. Third, I urge birding, bird conservation, and bird-science organizations to explicitly support the protection of all birds. For instance, the Cornell Lab of Ornithology has never officially opposed the eating of chicken, turkeys, or duck, nor has The Audubon Society. They understandably don’t want to make their members uncomfortable, yet it seems curious to bemoan the loss of so many bird species, as they do, when the number of chickens slaughtered each year outnumbers all of the wild birds on this planet. Birders are precisely the humans birds need as advocates: those who care about them and care about this planet.  A chicken, a duck, a turkey: Each is as much a bird as Flaco the owl. And no less deserving of protection. So the next time you think about going birding, consider a detour to a local sanctuary. The chickens would love to have a word. And you can leave your binoculars at home. Previously in The Revelator: Bird Bias? New Research Reveals ‘Drab’ Species Get…Less Research The post Birding’s Tragic Blind Spot appeared first on The Revelator.

How Friends in South Carolina Are Restoring a Wetland and Bringing Their Neighborhood Together

Joel Caldwell and two friends have been working to improve wetlands in Charleston, South Carolina

CHARLESTON, S.C. (AP) — As the October night deepened and her bedtime approached, Joel Caldwell's 4-year-old daughter huddled with her dad, dangling a stick she pretended was a fishing pole over a creek that has become Caldwell's passion project for nearly the entirety of his daughter's life.“I want my children to grow up with a relationship to the natural world,” said Caldwell. “But we live in a neighborhood, so how do you do that?”The answer Caldwell and two of his friends came to was improving the creek that snakes into their section of Charleston — preserving its tidal flow, expanding its reach and rewilding its edges. This wetland is a transition zone where the land meets the bigger river. Their work here is small in scale and local, but it is tangible and has built a community at a time when it has gotten easier to destroy such places.With fewer wetlands there are fewer fish, fewer plants, fewer insects and birds, dirtier water and less protection against floods. That flooding is a special concern in hurricane-prone Charleston. Storm threats are compounded further by sea rise, which is being driven by climate change. The trio's restoration work fits into a growing public appreciation over the last 10 to 15 years for how wetlands help absorb floodwater.“We can be paralyzed by the bad news that we are fed every day, or we can work within our local communities and engage with people and actually do things,” Caldwell said. Amid isolation, restoration project was founded Caldwell has traveled the world as a freelance photographer. Then the COVID-19 virus hit right around the time his wife gave birth to their first daughter. From that stuck-in-place isolation, he and two friends, who were also having their first children at the time, founded The Marsh Appreciation and Restoration Society for Happiness Project, or The MARSH Project. Halsey Creek is mere blocks from Caldwell's house. The tidal salt marsh extends a few thousand feet from the Ashley River, one of three rivers that meet at Charleston, flowing between blocks of single-family homes many squeezed on one-tenth-of-an-acre lots.Neglected and abused in its urban setting, their first project was a community trash pickup on a hot day. They expected maybe a dozen people but ended up with 50, thanks to advertising by cofounder Blake Suárez, a graphic designer. Caldwell said people were clearly hungry to connect with their local environment.Over the years, they’ve pulled tires, radios, televisions, “generations of garbage” and even brought over winches to remove a car engine from the marsh. Wetlands viewed as an impediment to progress “It is going to be even harder to protect those wetlands that are left because the best tool we had to protect those wetlands, the federal Clean Water Act, is really being gutted,” said Mark Sabath, an attorney with the nonprofit Southern Environmental Law Center.The wetlands around Charleston support oyster beds that filter water and cling to long, wooden piers that stretch over shallow water and into the Ashley River. Kingfishers and egrets fly between the cordgrass. It's a humid, sticky place during blazing summers in the South. A vein of the river becomes Halsey Creek, shooting into the Wagner Terrace neighborhood, a suburban area north of Charleston's historic downtown. Waves of communities called it home after World War II: it was predominantly Jewish along with Greek and Italian immigrants in the decades following the war, shifting to African American in the 1960s and 1970s. Today, gentrification has created a mostly white community of more expensive homes.To help protect the wetlands, The MARSH Project's first significant conservation step was buying an acre of land from a local landowner.That acre is not obviously remarkable, running along a sloped strip that hugs the water, a runway of backyard grass on one side and bushes crowding the other. But the purchase ensures it will stay wetlands, not become new houses.“With the state of the world, and maybe my own sort of inclination, I’m not, like, naturally a happy person. So, this is like my form of therapy,” said co-founder Blake Scott, a historian who can recite the marsh’s role in Charleston dating back to when the British staged a nearby siege during the Revolutionary War.“The marsh makes me happy.” 'There is no gesture too small' Private homes abut the creek, so Scott has become its neighborhood salesperson. Out on a recent day, Scott spotted Jill Rowley, who lives near the end of the creek. He pointed to bare soil in the yard, explaining it would be an ideal spot for native plants to cleanse and slow rushing water, offering an expert’s gardening advice and possibly funding.“I never had an interest in the marsh or native (plants),” Rowley said. “And seeing this, and what is going on here, and really feeling like a steward and learning … I’ve just fallen in love with it.”Rowley can see what Scott is describing by looking across the street at one of their demonstration gardens. This is not a place for evenly spaced flowers surrounded by freshly cut grass. It’s a wilder mass of plants, with tall bending golden rod and Elliott’s aster that sprout purple flowers to attract pollinators deep in the fall. Native plants like these helped increase the bugs for the kids’ moth night that brought Caldwell's daughter, Land, to the creek that October night with her dad. The founders see events like this as one way of ensuring the next generation appreciates the importance of the ecosystem.Scott believes wetlands and wildlife could improve the neighborhood. For part of its length, the creek meanders and absorbs the tide, but a bisecting street constrains flow to its back half. Here it struggles to turn and expand. Nearby blocks flood easily into a suburban lake that can rise to a tall man’s waste. He wants to install better drains and a tidal gate to help the marsh absorb millions of additional gallons of that floodwater. The reaction from neighbors has been mostly, but not universally, positive, Scott said – a limited few resists public access near their property or picking up trash.The trio of founders are now starting to look outside of their neighborhood to create a corridor of native plants and trees to connect wildlife across the city’s few remaining creeks. It builds on four years of hosting public lectures, trash pickups, planting pollinator gardens, bringing in students for water quality testing and many other community events.Through them, they’ve found success focusing on an issue, and local actions — not broader politics.“It’s getting as many people as possible to change whatever their little piece of earth is,” Caldwell said. “There is no gesture too small.”The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family Foundation for coverage of water and environmental policy. The AP is solely responsible for all content. For all of AP’s environmental coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/climate-and-environmentCopyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Oct. 2025

Biofuel Pledge at Climate Summit Highlights India’s Ethanol Blending Debate

Earlier this year, the Indian government announced that it has achieved its target of mixing 20% of ethanol—considered a relatively cleaner fuel—with petrol or gasoline five years ahead of schedule

BENGALURU, India (AP) — India's push to blend ethanol with gasoline shows the benefits and challenges of the sustainable fuel efforts being showcased at global climate talks this week. Earlier this year, the Indian government announced that it achieved its goal of mixing 20% of the plant-based fuel with gasoline five years ahead of schedule. The world's most populous country is joining Brazil, Japan and Italy to promote ethanol and other biofuels as part of the Belem 4x initiative. The initiative, being showcased Friday at the COP30 climate summit, provides political support for expanding biofuels and relatively low-emission hydrogen-based fuels. Brazil, long a biofuel leader, commonly sells a 27% ethanol blend and its government recently announced plans to increase the percentage. India's rapid ethanol shift shows challenges other countries could face. While the Indian government said ethanol usage reduces pollution, some users said it is affecting their mileage and damaging older engines. Most fuel pumps in India now sell the 20% ethanol blend or unblended gasoline that’s nearly twice as expensive. Lower ethanol blends are being phased out. Environment experts also said grain production for ethanol can displace food crops and sometimes generates more planet-warming gases than it saves. Indian car owners say ethanol reduces mileage Ethanol, typically made from corn, sugarcane or rice, is considered cleaner than petroleum-based gasoline. The Indian government said its blending program has already cut carbon emissions by 74 billion kilograms (163 billion pounds)— equivalent to planting 300 million trees — and saved over $12 billion in oil imports in the last decade.“I think it’s good for the environment,” said Vijay Ramakrishnan, a businessman in Chennai. “But I’ve noticed a drop in mileage in my vehicle in recent months. Given how expensive fuel already is this further drop is only adding to my costs.”Ramakrishnan, who commutes over 100 kilometers (62 miles) daily, wants the government to offer more fuel choices.Amit Khare, who runs a popular YouTube channel on automobiles, said many followers complain about a significant drop in mileage from E20. Some owners of older cars have told him that they are having engine trouble.“E5 is the best fuel, E10 is manageable, but E20 has given a lot of trouble,” he said. Ramya Natarajan of the Bengaluru-based Center for Study of Science, Technology and Policy said ethanol can be good for some engines if they are compatible, but agreed that it can reduce mileage. Indian farmers want clarity on crops needed for ethanol Farmers said they need clarity on government procurement plans for ethanol production. Ramandeep Mann, a farmer in India's northern Punjab state, said farmers significantly increased corn acreage last year in hopes of selling it for fuel, but the price dropped after the government allocated large amounts of rice to ethanol makers. The amount of ethanol blended with gasoline in India grew from 8% to 20% in the last five years. Most of the ethanol now comes from grains, as opposed to the sugarcane, its traditional source. Mann said prices for sugarcane have also dropped this year. He said it’s good that the government is tackling climate change, but it should put farmers and their prices ahead of ethanol mandates. Previously, surplus crops not needed for food were the primary source of India's ethanol, but that's beginning to change, according to Natarajan of CSTEP. “With the push for E20 blends or even more, a lot more area has to be cultivated which in turn means it’ll be replacing other crops,” she said. Climate experts said biofuel production can have minimal environmental impact when it’s made from waste or inedible vegetation and processed in facilities that run on clean energy. But when crops are grown explicitly for biofuels, it has a higher carbon footprint because of the fertilizer and fuel involved.India’s ethanol strategy is part of a broader effort to reduce emissions, cut oil imports and boost agriculture, said Purva Jain, an energy specialist at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.But she said a faster transition to infrastructure for electric vehicles might be better. A 2022 study by her organization found that installing solar power for EV charging can be a much more efficient land use than growing crops for biofuel. However, ethanol producers have invested significant sums in manufacturing and need a steady, growing market for their product now, said CK Jain, president of the Grain Ethanol Manufacturers Association. He said India should increase the percentage of ethanol mixed with gas and encourage the sale of compatible vehicles. “We need to have higher blending as soon as possible, otherwise the industry will go into deep financial trouble,” Jain said. Other experts advocated for a middle ground. A 10% blend of ethanol with gasoline, can be a “win-win” solution said Natarajan of CSTEP. She said that would allow for use of existing crops without putting too much pressure on increased cultivation. Khare, the YouTube influencer, said keeping lower blends available would help older vehicles. “The government can bring E20 or even up to E85 programs on top of that, that’s completely fine. But consumers need to be given the option,” he said. The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Oct. 2025

Lemurs Are Having a Mysterious 'Baby Boom' in Madagascar. Here's Why That Might Not Be a Good Thing

Researchers are investigating a sudden spike in pregnancies in one black-and-white ruffed lemur population that might signal environmental stress to the mammals

Lemurs Are Having a Mysterious ‘Baby Boom’ in Madagascar. Here’s Why That Might Not Be a Good Thing Researchers are investigating a sudden spike in pregnancies in one black-and-white ruffed lemur population that might signal environmental stress to the mammals Elizabeth Preston, bioGraphic November 7, 2025 8:30 a.m. A population of black-and-white ruffed lemurs on Madagascar is experiencing changes in the cadence of its breeding, researchers say. Inaki Relanzon / Nature Picture Library Every August, about halfway through his journey into Madagascar, veterinarian Randy Junge decides he’s never doing it again. After 30 hours of travel from the United States to reach the island off the southeast coast of Africa, he and his colleagues face a 12-hour trip by car over roads that are “bad to nonexistent,” he says. Then a team helps them carry their gear to camp—a hike of 18 miles through the rainforest. Once he recovers a little, though, Junge—who is the vice president of conservation medicine at the Columbus Zoo and Aquarium in Ohio—always changes his mind. He’ll be back. What stands to be learned about the long-term consequences of environmental change to the health of Madagascar’s lemurs is just too important. Junge works with Andrea Baden, a biological anthropologist at Hunter College in New York, on a long-term project monitoring a remote population of black-and-white ruffed lemurs (Varecia variegata). Baden started the project at Ranomafana National Park in southeast Madagascar in 2005. Junge joined in 2017. Every summer, they camp out at the park for about ten days and work with a Malagasy team to capture lemurs; conduct medical exams; and collect blood, feces and other samples for later analysis. They also observe lemur families and social interactions. For the rest of year, Malagasy research technicians, guides and graduate students keep tabs on the lemurs’ activity. Because the site is so arduous to reach, it remains a relatively pristine habitat with undisturbed lemurs. But there are signs that the globally transforming climate is changing these lemurs, too.  One of the researchers’ interests is the black-and-white ruffed lemurs’ fertility. The species breeds sporadically, but in 2024 the Ranomafana population had babies for an unprecedented second year in a row. The scientists fear that what looks like a miniature baby boom might actually be a sign that this species is in danger. Did you know? Where do lemurs live? Lemurs are only found in the wild on Madagascar and the nearby Comoro Islands. Like humans and chimpanzees, they are primates, though lemurs are more distant relatives of ours than the apes are. Black-and-white ruffed lemurs are largely arboreal, walking and leaping between tree branches across their forest habitat in search of fruit. Goran Safarek / Shutterstock Wild animals face challenges that their captive counterparts don’t. Back in Ohio, Junge’s animal patients at the zoo “live a pretty soft life,” he says. The lemurs he sees in the rainforest, by contrast, bear signs of their tougher environment, such as cracked teeth or broken fingers that have healed crooked. The environment also shapes reproduction. The pampered black-and-white ruffed lemurs in zoos breed every year and often bear litters of three to five infants. In their native habitat of Madagascar, where all wild lemur species dwell, the black-and-white ruffed lemurs have fewer babies at a time—if they get pregnant at all. Like other lemur species in the wild, black-and-white ruffed lemurs live in the treetops, eat mostly fruit and breed within a specific window of time. But unlike their cousins, which breed annually or at regular intervals such as every other year, black-and-white ruffed lemurs have unpredictable gaps between birth years. Their fickle fecundity is reinforced in a surprising way. Most of the time—as is the case with other lemur species—a female black-and-white ruffed lemur’s vulva has no opening at all. “They could not have sex if they wanted to,” Baden says. But for 24 to 72 hours around July of a lucky year, she says, “Their vagina will open like a flower.” There’s a brief frenzy of mating. Then the females close up shop again. “It’s totally weird,” Baden says. Researchers Randy Junge and Andrea Baden visit the Ranomafana forest in Madagascar each year to study black-and-white ruffed lemurs with their Malagasy colleagues. Randy Junge The result is a boom-or-bust baby cycle: In the years when the Ranomafana population breeds, usually 80 to 100 percent of adult females end up giving birth that October. A mother normally has two or three infants at a time, born helpless and with their eyes closed, “like puppies,” Baden says. Unlike nearly every other hairy primate, young black-and-white ruffed lemurs are unable to cling to their moms’ fur.  For the first month or so of life, the mom has to stay with her young nearly full-time in the nest—a high platform of branches and leaves. For maybe an hour each day, she leaves to forage fruit and to socialize. “Mom takes off and will literally make a beeline to other females’ nests and pop in and pay little visits,” Baden says. After about a month, the mother moves her infants to a new nest, carrying them one at a time in her mouth. Outside this nest, an adult male or female will stand guard, letting the mother spend more time away. Some moms continue parenting like this, Baden says. Others change tack, teaming up with their neighbors instead. They carry their babies to the nests of relatives or friends, or to crooks of trees, and park the kids together under the eye of a sentinel male, while all the moms go out. Baden compares this arrangement to a kindergarten. The mothers who take advantage of shared nests spend more time feeding themselves, and their infants seem more likely to survive, perhaps because more regular meals for mom translate into richer milk. The synchrony of their reproductive habits helps to make this communal care possible. “Something in their environment tells them ‘yes’ or ‘no,’” Baden says. The availability of certain resources may serve as a signal to breed. But no one knows exactly what that signal is, she says. “We’re only just starting to understand this system.” Black-and-white ruffed lemurs typically birth two to three babies at a time, but their pregnancies can be as long as five years apart. Lauren Bilboe / Shutterstock From 2005 to 2023, Baden always saw two or more years between breeding seasons at Ranomafana. Gaps between breeding years seem to be the norm in other black-and-white ruffed lemur populations, too. In Madagascar’s Manombo forest, other researchers observed a stretch where black-and-white ruffed lemurs didn’t breed for five years. That’s why, at Ranomafana in 2024, field observers were startled to see the lemurs mating for the second year in a row. To learn more about what was going on with the population, the U.S. scientists brought a portable ultrasound machine on their annual field visit. (Coincidentally, Baden was eight months pregnant at the time. She sent a graduate student in her place to make the long journey and hike. “I’m tough, but not that tough,” she says.) The Ranomafana population consists of about 40 lemurs, with 15 or so adult females. As in other years, the team used tranquilizer darts to capture some of the lemurs. After using a net to catch each sleepy animal falling from the tree canopy, they collected medical data, conducted ultrasounds on the females and replaced radio collars as needed. The team managed to get ultrasounds on seven of the females. The blurry black-and-white images revealed another surprise: pregnant mothers—but only some. Four of the seven females were pregnant (three with twins and one with a single fetus). In normal years, either none of the females get pregnant, or nearly all of them do. “Not half,” Junge says. Furthermore, he says, one fetus was about twice as big as all the others, suggesting its mother had bred early, outside of the usual window. Junge and Baden brought a portable ultrasound into the field to determine if any females were pregnant for an unprecedented second year in a row. Randy Junge The scientists didn’t know how many of these fetuses would survive to term. Come fall, though, the infants arrived—not in October but mid-September, in yet another aberration from their usual pattern. Multiple litters were born. Some lemur moms successfully reproduced for the second year in a row. Two years of babies might seem like a good thing. But Baden worries that the consecutive breeding years in Ranomafana hint at something different—perhaps a scrambling of whatever environmental cues usually synchronize their boom-or-bust communal breeding. “We’re seeing kind of wonky timing of reproduction, and we’re seeing the plants are fruiting and flowering at different times,” likely due to climate change, Baden says. “We’re seeing way drier wet seasons.” All in all, she says, “There may be some sort of breakdown in the system.” Researchers estimated in 2019 that this species had declined by at least 80 percent over the prior two decades. If scientists can figure out what environmental cues influence the black-and-white ruffed lemurs’ reproduction, that knowledge could be critical for keeping them alive.  Junge is studying the lemurs’ blood to see if the presence of a certain vitamin or mineral in their diet, for example, predicts when they’ll breed. “For instance, if there was a critical nutrient they get from one tree that isn’t fruiting, it could upset the whole reproductive cycle,” Junge speculates. “It’s a little scary, because that ability to succeed may be a very fine line.” A black-and-white ruffed lemur on a branch Diego Grandi / Shutterstock Climate change is rattling Madagascar and its wildlife beyond Ranomafana National Park. In addition to warming and rainfall changes, cyclones are becoming more common and intense on the island. These storms knock down trees and leave holes in the canopy. Increasing storms could disrupt the lemurs’ food supply. Because black-and-white ruffed lemurs have a more selective fruit diet than other species do, they may struggle to adapt when cyclones destroy their preferred feeding trees. The five-year breeding gap in one black-and-white ruffed lemur population came after an intense cyclone tore through their forest.   But climate change is only one of the environmental factors threatening Madagascar’s lemurs. Habitat loss is an ongoing problem that’s difficult to combat, as Harizo Georginnot Rijamanalina, one of Baden’s Malagasy graduate students, has seen firsthand. Rijamanalina recalls visiting a forest in his village as a child. He was tagging along with his father, who was on a mining expedition. While his dad’s team dug their pit, Rijamanalina explored the forest, collecting sticks to make into toy weapons, while lemurs swung overhead. That forest is still intact; Rijamanalina went home for a visit in 2022 and identified about 11 lemur species living there. After finishing his PhD at the University of Antananarivo in Madagascar’s capital city, he plans to take his expertise back home and work on conserving that site and its wildlife. But other areas of lemur habitat across the island have shrunk as he has grown up. The impacts of climate change on the forest, Rijamanalina says, are “exacerbated by intervention of local communities, who struggle from the difficult life.” In trying to survive, they log the forests, mine them for gold or gemstones, or hunt the lemurs themselves for meat.  “You see, every year, the forest [gets] pushed back,” says Tim Eppley, chief conservation officer at the U.S.-based conservation nonprofit Wildlife Madagascar. “It’s largely driven by lack of opportunity and food for the local human populations.” All wild lemurs live in Madagascar and the nearby Comoro Islands, and most populations have been impacted by the forces of development and climate change. Luca Nichetti / Shutterstock As a result, Eppley says, lemurs today are in “a very precarious situation.” Nearly all of Madagascar’s more than 100 lemur species are threatened with extinction. “Many of them have very small populations that exist just within a single forest, or maybe a series of forest fragments,” Eppley says. Every population is critical to protect, scientists say. Baden and her team hope that continuing the ultrasounds in coming field seasons, along with their other biomedical research, will unlock secrets about the black-and-white ruffed lemur’s fertility and unusual reproductive habits that could help safeguard the species. By tracking which lemurs get pregnant, then comparing the data to how the lemur families look later, the team can find out how many pregnancies arise from the short breeding season—and how many of those fetuses make it to term and survive. Lemurs have semi-opposable thumbs that help them grip branches. Pav-Pro Photography Ltd / Shutterstock Even though some Ranomafana females gave birth in two consecutive seasons, “I’ll be curious to see what mortality looks like this time,” Baden says. She’s noticed more infants in recent years not making it to their first birthday. It could be yet another sign that, between the poorly understood lemurs and their shifting environment, some equilibrium is slipping. Was the Ranomafana lemurs’ one weird year in 2024 the start of a trend that could hurt their odds of survival? Or just a fluke? In 2025, the Malagasy team didn’t notice the lemurs mating and assumed things were back to normal. The U.S. researchers brought the portable ultrasound with them when they returned to the rainforest in August, though, just to be sure. And what they found was unprecedented: At least two females were pregnant, yet again. If the babies make it to term, it will be one mother’s third straight year of breeding. She’ll birth those infants, though, into an uncertain future. This story originally appeared in bioGraphic, an independent magazine about nature and regeneration powered by the California Academy of Sciences. Get the latest Science stories in your inbox.

Pollution-plagued port communities near LA and Long Beach say regulator excludes them

Communities near the ports say regulators didn't consider their input when weighing a cooperative agreement about pollution from the ports.

Guest Commentary written by Theral Golden Theral Golden is a Long Beach resident Paola Vargas Paola Vargas is a community organizer at East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice The South Coast Air Quality Management District Board of Governors should vote against the so-called cooperative agreement to curb emissions in the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, because impacted community members were not meaningfully included, it weakens the district’s ability to reduce emissions and it creates a dangerous precedent.   The toxic pollution experienced daily by nearby community members isn’t new. The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are the busiest in the country. We have known for decades that port emissions shorten life expectancy and quality of life in the South Coast Air Basin, which encompasses parts of Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino counties and all of Orange County. These pollution-burdened areas are called “diesel death zones” due to the adverse health impacts. In places like West Long Beach, life expectancy is up to eight years shorter than the county average. Throughout the basin, there are an estimated 2,400 pollution related deaths a year. Both ports have made air quality improvements, but the complex is still the single largest fixed source of emissions in southern California.  And the toxins are only going to increase. Cargo activity at the ports is expected to rise 57% from 2021 to 2032. We can expect the human death toll to rise alongside it. There is a process underway with the South Coast Air Quality Management District — the governing body charged with regulating port pollution — that has the potential to address these grave health outcomes. Communities harmed by the pollution have consistently asked the district to incorporate their feedback when identifying solutions, but the district has not meaningfully engaged them. Instead, it has sided with industry time and again, allowing it to dictate the flow and outcomes of the process.  Gov. Gavin Newsom recently declined to sign Senate Bill 34, citing concerns that it would limit the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s authority to regulate port emissions and would interfere with cooperative actions taking place with the ports. We agree with Newsom’s assessment that regulatory authority and cooperation can avoid the worst health impacts — except the cooperation he refers to as “locally driven and collaborative” has been anything but.   The cooperative agreement includes a five-year ban on rulemaking. That handcuffs South Coast Air Quality Management District, effectively blocking the agency’s authority to address port pollution when the South Coast Air Basin can least afford a delay.  Youths play baseball at Bloch Field near the Port of Los Angeles in San Pedro on April 8, 2025. Photo by Joel Angel Juarez for CalMatters This ban on rulemaking not only impacts the ports of LA and Long Beach but every port in the district. It also sets a dangerous precedent that could spur other air districts to eliminate public participation in rulemaking processes and prioritize industry priorities over public health.  Instead of advancing the cooperative agreement, the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s board should provide more time to meaningfully and collaboratively engage local communities and consider public health implications.   This doesn’t have to be a zero-sum game. We can chart a path that addresses port pollution, improves quality of life and recognizes the role ports play in our global supply chains.  But that won’t happen without communities taking a meaningful place at the table. 

California lawmakers found money for these pet projects even as they slashed the budget

California lawmakers faced a difficult budget year, but they still managed to put hundreds of millions of dollars in earmarks in the state budget to benefit their districts — and help them get re-elected.

In summary California lawmakers faced a difficult budget year, but they still managed to put hundreds of millions of dollars in earmarks in the state budget to benefit their districts — and help them get re-elected. Despite facing a $12 billion deficit this year, California’s Legislature still managed to spend at least $415 million for local projects to help lawmakers win their next elections.  CalMatters found close to 100 earmarks inserted into just one of the state’s budget bills for local projects and programs that had little apparent benefit to anyone outside the lawmakers’ districts. Some of the earmarks raise concerns about legislative priorities in a difficult budget year, such as lawmakers spending millions from the general fund on museums, trails, parks and other amenities in wealthy communities.The spending includes $5 million in general fund money for a LGBTQ+ venue in high-cost San Francisco, $2.5 million for a private day school in Southern California and $250,000 for a private farm-animal rescue on the North Coast. Around $250 million of the local-project earmarks were funds taken from the $10 billion Proposition 4 climate bond California voters approved last year.  Some of the Prop. 4 earmarks included:  $26 million to programs paying farmers for private land conservation. $20 million to help the public access a Southern California beach gated off by a wealthy community. $15 million for “geologic heritage sites” including the La Brea Tar Pits — whose fossils have been used to study climate change in the last epoch. The earmarks were approved at the same time Gov. Gavin Newsom and lawmakers left state worker positions unfilled, suspended some health care benefits, forewent raises for firefighters, filled budget holes with high-interest bond money and took billions of dollars from the state’s “rainy day” emergency fund. Kristen Cox, executive director of the Long Beach Community Table foodbank, said the money lawmakers spent this year to enhance communities in their districts — often for projects that some would consider frills — isn’t going to the neediest Californians. “It’s misprioritization,” she said. “My priorities are to help the people that need it the most. Their priorities seem to be ‘Let’s make this city look gentrified and pretty and beautiful.’”  A secret process that benefits lawmakers Many of the earmarks — one-time allotments of cash for a specific purpose or project — are fairly benign and went to local infrastructure needs such as fire stations, parks, public schools and environmental projects.  They also represent just a small portion of the state’s $321 billion budget, which pays for programs and services that typically are intended to help all of California.  But inside the notoriously secretive budget negotiation process, lawmakers also have the ability to set aside sizable chunks of money to benefit their districts through an even more opaque earmark system.  It allows them to direct money to their pet projects without leaving a fingerprint — at least until they issue a press release touting a new community perk or show up for ribbon-cutting and check-passing ceremonies. Such spending, disparagingly called “pork-barrel spending” or “pork” for short, is hardly new or unique to California, said Thad Kousser, a former legislative staffer and political science professor at UC San Diego. He has extensively studied equity in how politicians divide up budgets for local needs.  Learn more about legislators mentioned in this story. Mike McGuire Democrat, State Senate, District 2 (Santa Rosa) Christopher Cabaldon Democrat, State Senate, District 3 Jerry McNerney Democrat, State Senate, District 5 (Stockton) Scott Wiener Democrat, State Senate, District 11 (San Francisco) Monique Limón Democrat, State Senate, District 19 (Santa Barbara) Benjamin Allen Democrat, State Senate, District 24 (El Segundo) Henry Stern Democrat, State Senate, District 27 (Calabasas) Catherine Blakespear Democrat, State Senate, District 38 (Encinitas) Brian Jones Republican, State Senate, District 40 (San Diego) Cecilia Aguiar-Curry Democrat, State Assembly, District 4 (Davis) Ash Kalra Democrat, State Assembly, District 25 (San Jose) Gregg Hart Democrat, State Assembly, District 37 (Santa Barbara) Jesse Gabriel Democrat, State Assembly, District 46 (Encino) There’s a reason it’s pervasive: When politicians keep the cash flowing back home, it helps them get re-elected, he said. “Politicians across generations — and in every country — try to use some portion of the budget on these clear signals that they’re directing the flow of government dollars to real people and real organizations right at home in their district,” he said. “Voters reward that.” Eyeing higher office? Send pork home The biggest recipient of the earmarks in Senate Bill 105 appears to be the North Coast Senate district of Democratic Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire. After losing his legislative leadership seat this year, he seems to be positioning himself for a congressional bid, according to The Santa Rosa Press Democrat. If he does run, he’ll be able to tout all the cash he brought to his Senate district this year.  His district was the recipient of more than two dozen earmarks totalling more than $100 million, accounting for a quarter of the earmark funds CalMatters identified. They went to fund a regional hospital, harbors, habitat projects, schools and fire stations. His district also received $250,000 for the farm-animal rescue.  State Sen. President Pro Tem Mike McGuire during a floor session at the state Capitol in Sacramento on April 24, 2025. Photo by Fred Greaves for CalMatters His largest earmarks included $50 million in Prop. 4 funds for a redwood trail that’s to run 320 miles across his district. McGuire’s office didn’t make him available for an interview. McGuire instead sent an emailed statement defending the earmarks. “Our state’s budget includes smart, one-time investments across California,” McGuire said. “Many in our state have been working on these projects for years to make California safer, stronger and more resilient.” Sen. Scott Wiener, the powerful Senate Budget Committee chairperson from San Francisco, is definitely running for higher office. Wiener announced last month he’s running for Nancy Pelosi’s congressional seat. The budget included at least $9 million in general fund earmarks benefiting the voters of San Francisco who will decide whether to send him to Washington, D.C. The money went for parks, restroom improvements and “to support the preservation and revitalization of a historic LGBTQ+ venue” in the city’s Castro neighborhood, according to the budget bill which doesn’t name the venue.  San Francisco is also slated to receive $1 million for a new oncology clinic and chemotherapy center for Chinese Hospital and $250,000 for “accessibility improvements” to Wah Mei child development center. Wiener’s office didn’t respond to interview requests. Lawmakers complained of earmarks None of the earmarks have a lawmaker’s name on them, making it extremely difficult for members of the public — or even other lawmakers — to decipher whose they are and which districts benefited. The governor’s administration is responsible for some. Legislative staff told CalMatters while reporting this story that earmark requests sent to budget committees aren’t public records.  CalMatters instead used the Digital Democracy database’s ‘Find your legislators’ tool to triangulate which pork projects are in which lawmakers’ districts from earmarks inserted into SB 105. That’s one of 40 budget-related bills Newsom signed this year. There are almost certainly more earmarks buried in the other budget measures. The secretive nature of earmarks — and the number and size of them this year — became a source of contention in September at the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee.  Some Democratic lawmakers complained that so many last-minute earmarks had popped up in the spending bills. They questioned whether the earmarks were being fairly distributed to communities with the most need. “For the climate bond money, the general fund money, the Medi-Cal money, the Department of Education money, across the transit money, in almost every one, there is at least one — sometimes 40 — specific allocations,” Sacramento Sen. Christopher Cabaldon told the committee.  “The broader concern about equity and balance in those earmarks is certainly a point really well taken,” said Sen. Ben Allen, a Democrat representing the El Segundo area. Nonetheless, none of the 90 Democrats who control the Legislature voted against the budget this year, according to Digital Democracy.Newsom also signed it into law. His office didn’t respond to an interview request.  Susan Shelley of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association blasted the pork-project spending as hypocritical, especially as some liberal groups and lawmakers support raising taxes or turning to voters to pass new bonds to prop up the state’s shaky finances. Politicians, she said, like to say, “‘We need money for everything in California.’ And what are they spending the money on now? Basically gifts to the districts that make the elected representatives look good and that are not essential or not as essential.” Pork in Prop. 4  About $275 million in Prop. 4 funds also went to backfill the state’s general fund budget covering existing environmental, fire and energy programs and for expenses such as deferred maintenance at state parks.  Using bond funds to pay for existing expenses in the general fund means there’s less bond money available to pay for the new expenditures voters thought they were supporting. The separate bond earmarks from lawmakers reflect their priorities and may not necessarily be what voters wanted either. Some of the lawmakers’ earmarks include:  $40 million to secure public access to a beach blocked off by the wealthy gated Hollister Ranch community in Santa Barbara County and for a separate dam-removal project. Both projects are in the district of Sen. Monique Limón, who is replacing McGuire as the Senate Democratic leader next year. She shares a district with a handful of assemblymembers who may have sought the earmarks.  Limón’s district also received $1 million for a museum in Santa Barbara “for an interactive water exhibit.” Limón replied to an interview request with an email from her spokesperson, Christina Montoya. “While the senator was not involved in Prop. 4 allocations,” Montoya said, “she is glad to see projects funded that advance the goals of the state.” An aerial photo of Hollister Ranch, located west of Santa Barbara along the Gaviota Coast, on June 16, 2021. Photo by George Rose, Getty Images $1 million went to the UC Davis Integrative Center for Alternative Meat and Protein, primarily at the request of San Jose Assemblymember Ash Kalra. UC Davis isn’t in Kalra’s district, but he’s a vegan and the chair of the Assembly Select Committee On Alternative Protein Innovation. The $15 million earmark “for geologic heritage sites” including the La Brea Tar Pits in Los Angeles was from Democratic Assemblymember Isaac Bryan. His office didn’t make him available for an interview. Taxpayers will pay at least $6 billion in interest and other expenses to finance Prop. 4 over the next four decades. Using Prop. 4 to pay farmers  An example of how earmarks lock up Prop. 4 funds can be found in this year’s budget for the Wildlife Conservation Board. The $10 billion bond is supposed to provide $1 billion for the board to give out as grants in the coming years. The board uses a competitive process that prioritizes habitat project proposals to provide the most ecological benefits for California. This year, the Legislature gave the board $339 million in Prop. 4 money to spend. But about a quarter of it — $88 million — is going to projects the board must now fund because of  lawmakers’ earmarks.  Gregg Hart, a Santa Barbara Democratic assemblymember, got one of the biggest earmarks from the board’s funds — $16 million for a conservation easement on Rancho San Julian, a 13,000-acre private ranch in his district. Conservation easements are legal agreements that ensure private lands don’t get sold and turned into environmentally unfriendly developments.  In an interview, Hart said preserving the ranch’s habitat in perpetuity is in line with what voters intended when they voted for Prop. 4. Assemblymember Gregg Hart speaks during a committee hearing on petroleum and gasoline supply on Sept. 18, 2024. Photo by Miguel Gutierrez Jr., CalMatters “In my district, this is a signature ranch that is an environmental gem,” Hart said. “And preserving that is a very high-value project.” The conservation board also must allocate $10 million in Prop. 4 earmarks to programs that will pay farmers and private wetland landowners in the Central Valley to flood their fields to provide habitat for waterbirds.  Central Valley farmers already have received hundreds of millions of dollars in federal crop subsidies over the decades. The flooded-field earmarks came from Democratic Sen. Jerry McNerney, who represents the Stockton area, and Assemblymember Cecilia Aguiar-Curry representing the Davis area. In an emailed statement, McNerney called the $10 million expenditure a “win-win for farmers and for wetlands … ensuring that migratory birds have places to rest and refuel on their long journey on the Pacific Flyway.” The total number of earmarks relying on Prop. 4 funds has Senate Republican Leader Brian Jones of San Diego saying, “I told you so.” He urged voters to reject the bond last year.  “It was going to be pork,” he said. “It was going to be earmarked projects that the legislators are going to be able to move …. into things that really didn’t have anything to do with the story that was being told to the voters when they voted.” Jones’ district was the recipient of some pork, though he said he made no requests for Prop. 4 money. His earmarks were from the general fund. They include $1.4 million for San Diego County dam repairs and $615,000 to the San Diego Mountain Biking Association “for building and maintaining public trails for mountain biking.”  ‘What did we get?’ from the general fund Other notable earmarks from general fund dollars, separate from the climate bond, include large one-time allocations for projects to benefit the state’s Jewish community. The Legislature has an  18-member Jewish Caucus.The funds include $15 million for the Museum of Tolerance and the Holocaust Memorial in Los Angeles as well as $5.4 million for the Jewish Community Center of the East Bay.  The Los Angeles Jewish community and interfaith leaders hold a candle lighting ceremony marking the exact moment of the first anniversary since Hamas spearheaded attacks on Israel on Oct. 7, at a ceremony at The Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles on Oct. 6, 2024. Photo by Damian Dovarganes, AP Photo An earmark for $2.5 million also went “for security and other infrastructure” at Milken Community School East Campus, a private Los Angeles Jewish school with annual tuition of nearly $55,000. The school is in Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel’s and Sen. Henry Stern’s districts. Stern’s office said the earmark for the private school wasn’t his. Gabriel co-chairs the Legislative Jewish Caucus with Wiener. Gabriel also oversees the Assembly Budget Committee. He didn’t return messages. Neither did the school.Gabriel this week attended a check-passing ceremony at the Discovery Cube in Los Angeles. He and two other local lawmakers touted getting the children’s museum a $5 million earmark from Prop. 4 funds. Other earmarks using general fund money included at least $1.7 million for trail improvements and an urban garden in Democratic Sen. Catherine Blakespear’s wealthy coastal district, as well as $3.6 million for the Oceanside Museum of Art.  Blakespear responded to an interview request with an emailed statement. “I’m grateful that these impactful community projects were funded through the state’s general fund,” she said. “I know they will provide immense value to these communities and their residents and are deserving of funding.” She announced this week she would be appearing at a check-passing ceremony for one of her earmarks: $1.2 million to the city of Mission Viejo for the Oso Creek Trail Improvement Project. Former Stockton-area Democratic state Sen. Susan Talamantes Eggman said such earmarks are hardly surprising. She was proud to bring back to her district $10 million in her last term to reopen two dilapidated community swimming pools.   “I mean, that is fantastic for my district,” she said.  But she acknowledged it is a lot harder for lawmakers to justify those sorts of expenses when there are so many of them in a difficult budget year.  “I think you either hope that (people) won’t find out, or they see what stuff they’re getting, and they’re like, ‘Oh, all right, well, as long as we got ours,’ right?” she said. “What people are more concerned about is equity. ‘What did we get?’”

California’s pro-housing laws have failed to raise new home numbers

New housing starts were around 100,000 a year when Newsom took office in 2019; they still hover around that number today.

California YIMBY, an organization founded eight years ago to promote housing construction in response to an ever-increasing gap between demand and supply, held a victory party in San Francisco recently. “Welcome to the most victorious of California YIMBY’s victory parties,” Brian Hanlon, founder and CEO of the organization, told attendees. Its acronym (Yes In My Backyard) symbolizes its years-long battle with NIMBYs (Not in My Backyard), people and groups who have long thwarted housing projects by pressuring local governments that control land use. YIMBY’s party marked the passage of several pro-housing legislative measures this year, two of which have long been sought by housing advocates. Assembly Bill 130 exempts many urban housing projects from the California Environmental Quality Act, while Senate Bill 79 makes it easier to building high-density housing near transit stations in large cities. “2025 was a year,” Hanlon gleefully declared. The celebratory atmosphere was understandable because this year’s legislative actions capped a half-decade of ever-mounting state government activism on housing that followed Gov. Gavin Newsom’s 2017 campaign pledge to build 3.5 million new units of housing if elected. That goal was wildly unrealistic, as Newsom should have known, but he did push hard for legislation to remove barriers to housing development. His housing agency also ramped up pressure on local governments to remove arbitrary hurdles that YIMBY-influenced officials had erected and to meet quotas for identifying land that could be used for housing. However, the celebration omitted one salient factor: Pro-housing legislative and administrative actions have failed to markedly increase housing production. New housing starts were around 100,000 a year when Newsom took office in 2019, and they are about that number today, with the net increase even lower. As the Housing and Community Development Department admits in its statewide housing plan, “Not enough housing being built: During the last ten years, housing production averaged fewer than 80,000 new homes each year, and ongoing production continues to fall far below the projected need of 180,000 additional homes annually.” The Census Bureau calculates that since Newsom took office, new housing permits in California ranged from a high of 120,780 units in 2022 to a low of 101,546 last year. Newsom’s own budget agrees with the Census Bureau’s data for the same period and projects future construction through 2028 at 100,000 to 104,000 units a year. Those are the numbers. But how data on housing is collected and collated has been a somewhat murky process, and opponents of housing projects often challenge how they comport with quotas the state imposes on local communities. Fortunately, the Census Bureau has unveiled a new statistical tool that should go a long way toward having complete data that includes not only conventional single- and multi-family projects, but alternative forms of housing such as backyard granny flats, officially known as Accessory Dwelling Units; basements or garages that are transformed into apartments; single-family homes converted into duplexes or apartments; mobile homes or office buildings that become housing. The tool uses several sources of data but is heavily reliant on the Postal Service, which maintains a constantly updated roster of addresses that includes all housing types. More accurate data should make it easier to overcome conflicts and may even reveal that California’s pro-housing actions have had positive effects that current methodology misses. “The housing crisis has persisted in part because we haven’t been able to measure our progress accurately,” an article about the new tool published by the Niskanen Center, a think tank, concludes. “With the Census Bureau’s Address Count Listing File data, that excuse is gone. Now the question is whether policymakers will use this powerful new tool to finally build the housing America needs.”

If Trump’s EPA abandons climate policy, could California take over on greenhouse gases?

Legal experts, including a former federal official and UCLA professor, say California could go it alone if the federal government stops regulating greenhouse gases. One reason to try is to protect the state’s clean-car economy.

In summary Legal experts, including a former federal official and UCLA professor, say California could go it alone if the federal government stops regulating greenhouse gases. One reason to try is to protect the state’s clean-car economy. California has long cast itself as the nation’s climate conscience — and its policy lab. Now, as the Environmental Protection Agency moves to revoke the backbone of federal climate rules — the scientific finding that greenhouse gases threaten human health — one of the state’s top climate officials is weighing a provocative idea put forward by environmental law experts: If Washington retreats, California could lead on carbon-controlling regulation.   Absent what’s known as the endangerment finding, the EPA may soon consider abandoning the legal authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases from vehicles, power plants and other sources, furthering the Trump Administration’s stated aim to dismantle U.S. climate policy.  While decrying the prospect of such a move, climate advocates say a repeal would yield a silver lining: California and other states could in theory set their own greenhouse gas rules for cars and trucks, regulations previously superseded by federal authority. Cars and trucks represent more than a third of California’s greenhouse gas emissions. A long shot regulatory gambit could clean some of the nation’s dirtiest air – and keep the state’s clean-car transition alive. “All options are currently on the table,” Lauren Sanchez, chair of the California Air Resources Board, told CalMatters in an interview. Authority states have never had before A former federal official and expert on the Clean Air Act – who is also a law professor at UCLA – first floated this idea.  Ann Carlson wrote in the law journal Environmental Forum that an aggressive federal action against climate policy “could, ironically, provide states with authority they’ve never had before.” The Trump administration now argues that greenhouse gases do not endanger health and that regulation is more harmful — a claim widely rejected by scientists, businesses and environmental groups, as well as states, including California. The Phillips 66 refinery in Wilmington, on Sept. 30, 2025. Photo by Stella Kalinina for CalMatters “If greenhouse gases aren’t covered by the Clean Air Act,” Carlson told CalMatters, “then California could presumably regulate them — and so could every other state.” Carlson, who ran the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration until last year and has written extensively about the landmark law, argues that the act only preempts state rules for pollutants it actually covers. States “have a pretty strong legal argument” to regulate greenhouse gases, she said. The EPA, for its part, argues that states would still be barred from setting their own standards, arguing that its broad authority over air pollution covers even emissions the agency chooses not to regulate. That’s a view shared by the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, a trade association and lobbying group, which supported overturning California’s phaseout of new, gas-powered cars, as well as the American Trucking Associations, which has opposed some of California’s rules on trucks. Carlson said that argument doesn’t hold up. In her Environmental Forum article, she wrote: “If Congress didn’t intend the act to cover greenhouse gases, as the administration argues, then it’s hard to believe Congress intended to preempt states and localities from regulating them.” In other words, she says, preemption has its limits.  Other experts agreed the idea is worth considering.  Ethan Elkind, who directs the climate program at UC Berkeley’s Center for Law, Energy and the Environment, said that states are free to “do whatever they want,” as long as the federal government hasn’t preempted them.  Not a slam dunk for California to step in For the better part of a century, California has worked to curb air pollution at the state and local level. The state’s vanguard status positions it well to test Trump’s move to curb federal climate regulation, say experts.  “I personally would be advocating that they move ahead,” said Mary Nichols, a former air board chair. “And if I were there, I would be looking to gain support for doing it.” California holds a unique status under federal law. It can set tougher tailpipe-emission standards than the rest of the country — a recognition of its early leadership in fighting smog. Since 1968, the state has obtained more than 100 federal waivers for its vehicle rules, and other states can adopt California’s standards under certain conditions. UC Berkeley law professor Daniel Farber said the state could even take a dual-track approach. “We don’t really think we need a waiver,” he would argue after EPA abandons the field, “but just in case we do: yes, give us one.” California’s latest clash with Washington stems from a decades-long dance over who sets the nation’s toughest clean-car rules. The state’s strict vehicle rules have helped spur innovations from catalytic converters to cleaner fuel to electric cars. The regulatory push began in Los Angeles after skies grew so smog-choked they stung peoples’ eyes. In 1966, California adopted the nation’s first tailpipe standards. When Congress passed the 1970 Clean Air Act, it gave the state rare authority to set tougher rules — making California both a laboratory and a trailblazer, so long as it secured a federal waiver. In 2002, California passed the nation’s first law regulating greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. The Supreme Court’s 2007 Massachusetts v. EPA ruling confirmed those gases are pollutants under federal law, leading to the Obama administration’s 2009 “endangerment finding” that they harm public health. Such a move would fit California’s pattern of pushing first and asking permission later. In 2005, the state adopted its greenhouse-gas standards for vehicles and sought a waiver before it was even clear whether carbon qualified as pollution under federal law. The EPA initially denied that request in 2008 but reversed course a year later, granting the waiver in 2009. “So this wouldn’t necessarily be a slam dunk approach for the state to take, but I think the legal avenue is now there,” said Elkin, of UC Berkeley. Targeting cars with new regulation If California tried to regulate greenhouse gases on its own, it would have both experience and infrastructure to rely on. The process would look a lot like how the state has written past clean-car rules — except this time, the target would be carbon itself. California’s clean-car rules have operated within the permission-seeking framework set up by the Clean Air Act — until this year, when Trump and Congress moved to block the state’s plans to phase out gas cars and tighten diesel-truck standards. Trump’s EPA then went further by proposing to repeal the 2009 endangerment finding, framing it as a win for “consumer choice.” Most of the state’s climate programs already run under authority of California’s own groundbreaking state laws: clean-energy mandates for utilities, a carbon-trading program for businesses, even standards to cut the carbon in fuels. Cars are different. They’re sold into a national market, and tailpipe emissions have long been federally preempted — one reason California has needed Washington’s permission to go its own way. If the state decides to test those limits, regulators would need to draft new rules and open them to public review — a process that could take years. California has already started down the path of new rules for clean cars and trucks. Last month, the Air Resources Board began the process of crafting clean car rules in response to the Trump administration’s rollback of the state’s new gas-car ban — a revocation the state is also fighting in court. In December, the board plans to begin the process of writing new emissions rules for trucks. The automobile association declined to comment on the new rulemaking effort.  Patrick Kelly, vice president of energy and environmental affairs for American Trucking Associations, said the group would work with its state affiliate to “respond to specific proposals. “ “More broadly, (our group) supports achievable national standards and opposes a patchwork of state and local standards that Congress sought to avoid,” Kelly wrote in an email. Gov. Gavin Newsom swears in incoming California Air Resources Board Chair Lauren Sanchez on Oct. 1, 2025. Photo courtesy of Office of the Governor Asked by CalMatters whether the new rulemakings could become the vehicle for California to go its own way under Trump, Sanchez, the air board chair, said it’s an option staff is studying. “It’s something that staff is looking into, and I look forward to digging into myself,” Sanchez said. No downside to trying, and some upsides Even if legal experts like the idea in theory, UC Berkeley’s Dan Farber says California going forward alone is a longshot in practice.  “There’s a chance you would win,” Farber said, of the argument that the state could directly regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars. “You’re buying a lawsuit, but other than litigation expenses, I don’t think there’s much downside in trying to do it.” Farber and others point out that the Trump administration and car and truck manufacturers would almost certainly sue to block state-level efforts to regulate greenhouse gases.  The Alliance for Automotive Innovation warned, in comments to the EPA, that if states were not preempted, any unregulated emission “would then become fair game,” creating conflicting standards across the country. Automakers have long argued that letting states write their own climate rules would create a costly patchwork of standards, raising prices for consumers and complicating production for a national market. California is in somewhat of a legal quandary. The Clean Air Act requires California to meet national pollution standards, and the state still has some of the most air-polluted regions in the country. The state’s solutions rely heavily on clean-car and truck rules to meet those requirements. If California falls short, it could lose federal highway funding, a situation that Sanchez called a “no-win, Catch 22.”  After decades of regulation and incentives, California has built a reputation as a leader in electric cars, and experts said if the state pushes further on policy, that could help keep California’s clean-car transition alive and its electric-vehicle goals within reach.  Nick Nigro, founder of Atlas Public Policy, said California could also risk getting ahead of consumers if it goes it alone. Electric cars proved less popular than policymakers expected when it originally passed its goal to do away with sales of new gas-powered cars.  “What is clear is that the program was not overwhelmingly popular amongst the public, even in California, right?” Nigro said. “That’s usually a flag for policymakers.” Craig Segall, an independent consultant and former state air board deputy, said there’s another factor to consider: by preserving demand and infrastructure for EVs, the state could maintain a beachhead for innovation that a future president might build on. With no coherent federal policy to compete in the global EV market, California could again use its regulatory and investment muscle — just as it once did in helping spawn electric car maker Tesla — to push the market forward. “What the feds are basically signaling here is that the field is open for anyone who’s serious about being a competitive car or truck company in five years,” Segall said. “One of those paths is: the world’s fourth largest economy figures out ways to take its manufacturing economic capacity and just plow ahead.”

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.