Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Accept Deny

GoGreenNation News

Learn more about the issues presented in our films
Show Filters

Offshore oil plan was 'primed for cash flow,' but then it hit California regulators

A Texas company wants to drill for oil off Santa Barbara County's coast. Experts say its path to oil sales is looking more and more challenging.

When a Texas oil company first announced controversial plans to reactivate three drilling rigs off the coast of Santa Barbara County, investor presentations boasted that the venture had “massive resource potential” and was “primed for cash flow generation.” But now, less than two years later, mounting legal setbacks and regulatory issues are casting increasing doubt on the project’s future.Most recently, the California attorney general filed suit against Houston-based Sable Offshore Corp., accusing it of repeatedly putting “profits over environmental protections.” The lawsuit, filed last week in Santa Barbara County Superor Court, accuses Sable of continually failing to follow state laws and regulations intended to protect water resources. Sable, the lawsuit claims, “was at best misinformed, incompetent and incorrect” when it came to understanding and adhering to the California Water Code. “At worst, Sable was simply bamboozling the Regional Water Board to meet a critical deadline,” according to the lawsuit.The action comes less than a month after the Santa Barbara County district attorney’s office filed criminal charges against the company, accusing it of knowingly violating state environmental laws while working on repairs to oil pipelines that have sat idle since a major spill in 2015. The company also faces legal challenges from the California Coastal Commission, environmental groups and even its own investors. These developments now threaten the company’s ability to push forward on what has become an increasingly expensive and complicated project, according to some experts.Clark Williams-Derry, an analyst for the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, said there are still ways Sable could get off the ground and begin oil sales, but the repeated setbacks have become what he called “cumulative risk” for investors, who are key to funding the restart. “Sable is at risk of burning through its cash, and lenders are going to have to make a decision about whether or not this is a good investment,” Williams-Derry said. Ongoing pushback from the public, the state and in lawsuits makes that increasingly a hard argument to make, he said. Sable, however, said it remains steadfast in its goal of reactivating the Santa Ynez Unit — a complex of three offshore platforms, onshore processing facilities and connecting pipelines. The unit was shuttered by a different company a decade ago after a corroded section of pipeline ruptured near Refugio State Beach, creating one of the state’s worst oil spills. The company denies that it has broken any laws and insists that it has followed all necessary regulations. Recently, however, company officials have promoted a new restart plan that could avoid California oversight. Company officials say the new plan would keep the project entirely within federal waters — pivoting away from using the contentious pipelines and from what company officials called California’s “crumbling energy complex.”Jim Flores, the company’s chief executive, said Sable is working with the Trump administration’s National Energy Dominance Council on the plan to use an offshore storage and treatment vessel to transport crude from its offshore wells instead of the pipeline system. Although the company reports that pipeline repairs are complete, the lines have not yet been approved for restart by state regulators. “California has to make a decision soon on the pipeline before Sable signs an agreement for the [offshore vessel] and goes all in on the offshore federal-only option,” Flores said in a statement. The company acknowledges that transporting oil by ship instead of pipeline would dramatically extend the company’s timeline and increase its costs. In a June Securities and Exchange Commission report, Sable said there was “substantial doubt ... about the company’s ability to continue,” given ongoing negative cash flow and stalled regulatory approvals. However, the company says it continues to seek approvals to restart the pipelines from the California Office of the State Fire Marshal. The state fire marshal has said the plans remain under review, but the office has made clear that the pipelines will be approved for operation only “once all compliance and safety requirements, including ... approvals from other state, federal and local agencies, are met.”Deborah Sivas, a professor of environmental law at Stanford’s Law School, said it’s getting harder to see a successful path forward for Sable.“It’s pretty rare that an entity would have all these agencies lined up concerned about their impacts,” Sivas said of state regulators. “These agencies don’t very lightly go to litigation or enforcement actions. ... and the public is strongly against offshore drilling. So those are a whole bunch of reasons that I think are going to be hard obstacles for that company.”But even if Sable can pivot to federal-only oversight under a friendly Trump administration, Williams-Derry said there’s no clear-cut path. “This is an environment where some of the best, most profitable oil companies in the U.S. have cut drilling this year because profits are too low,” Williams-Derry said. Sable has enough money in the bank right now to have a “little bit of running room,” he said, “...but you can imagine that [investors] are going to start running out of patience.”The new lawsuit filed by the California attorney general lays out a year’s worth of instances in which Sable either ignored or defied the California Water Code during the firm’s pipeline repair work. The attorney general’s office called Sable’s evasion of regulatory oversight “egregious,” warranting “substantial penalties.” It’s not immediately clear how much will be demanded, but violations of the California Water Code are subject to a civil liability of up to $5,000 for each day a violation occurs. Despite repeated reminders and warnings from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Coast region, Sable did not comply with the water code, preventing the board “from assuring best management practices ... to avoid, minimize and mitigate impacts to water quality,” the lawsuit said. “No corporation should gain a business advantage by ignoring the law and harming the environment,” Jane Gray, chair of the Central Coast Water Board, said in a statement. “Entities that discharge waste are required to obtain permits from the state to protect water quality. Sable Offshore Corp. is no different.”The case comes months after the California Coastal Commission similarly found that Sable failed to adhere to the state’s Coastal Act despite repeated warnings and fined the company $18 million.

Business
Energy
Waste

What humans might learn from nature’s real-life zombies

Zombies, it turns out, are real — and science journalist Mindy Weisberger can give you plenty of examples of them. She’s read up on the fungi that take over flies’ bodies, partially digesting them from the inside out before forcing them to climb up blades of grass, so that fungal spores can explode out from […]

Cicadas can be infected by a fungal parasite that turns them into zombies. | Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images Zombies, it turns out, are real — and science journalist Mindy Weisberger can give you plenty of examples of them. She’s read up on the fungi that take over flies’ bodies, partially digesting them from the inside out before forcing them to climb up blades of grass, so that fungal spores can explode out from their swollen corpses and claim new victims.  She’s considered the hairworms that grow inside of crickets before inducing their hosts to toss themselves into a nearby body of water, where the worms emerge from the crickets’ exoskeleton in a miniature but all-too-real imitation of the alien in Alien.  She’s even researched the snails that fall victim to certain flatworms. The flatworms’ larvae need to be eaten by birds to reach the next stage of their lifecycle, so broodsacs full of larvae take up residence in the snails’ eyestalks and turn them into pulsing, colorful, caterpillar-like bird-lures. The parasite also manipulates the snails into wandering into the open in order to increase the odds that a bird will spot the snails and devour both their eyestalks and the larvae within them.  Weisberger dug into these specific nightmare-inducing examples of parasitic mind-control — and many others — as part of her effort to understand real-life “zombification” in her book, Rise of the Zombie Bugs. What she found was that these natural zombie stories are not only sources of inspiration for horrifying fiction — they could also inspire researchers who are trying to better understand everything from immune responses to pest control.  So we spoke to Weisberger about research on real-life zombies for Unexplainable, Vox’s science podcast. What follows is a version of our conversation, edited for clarity and length. There’s much more in the full podcast, so listen to Unexplainable wherever you get podcasts, including Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Let’s start by just defining some terms. What do we mean when we say “zombifier,” or “zombie?” Sure. A zombifier is an organism that manipulates the behavior of its host, and a zombie is an organism that is being manipulated to behave in a way that it normally would not, and which only benefits the parasite that’s manipulating it.  Let’s say you catch a cold — you’re gonna change your behavior because you’re feeling sick. You feel like you need to rest more, you need to drink more water. These are all things that help you recover, that help you fight off the infection. So in a certain sense, that’s the cold virus generating a change in behavior, but it’s a behavioral change that actually benefits you.  For a zombie, the changes to its behavior are not something that benefit the host. They only benefit the parasite. That’s what makes it a zombie. So it’d be like if I got sick and instead of going into my room and trying to sleep it off, I went and I licked everybody that I could lick in order to spread it.  Yeah, exactly. There are zombifying viruses; there are zombifying fungi; there are insects that are able to zombify their hosts. There are worms that can zombify their hosts. Most of the organisms that they infect are arthropods — bugs. (I do have to apologize to entomologists, because as far as entomologists are concerned, bugs are only insects with sucking mouth parts. However, as we all know, colloquially, “bugs” covers a much broader range.) What are some of the biggest categories of mysteries about how [zombifiers do what they do]? Some of the biggest mysteries start with the moment that the host is infected, because obviously a body’s first response to any kind of infection is going to be an immune response. The first thing that a zombifier needs to do is to somehow get past that. That’s a big question for zombifiers, from viruses to wasps to fungi to worms: When they get inside an organism where they’re not supposed to be, how exactly are they telling their host immune system, “No, there’s nothing to see here! Just go about your business! You don’t need to worry about me!”  Another one is, once it gets to the point of manipulation, what are the cues? How does it decide “OK, now’s the right time to get this host moving to a place where I need to be”?  The third big question is obviously the nuts and bolts of: How is it manipulating behavior? The thing about this field is that there is still so much that scientists are piecing together about the precise mechanisms of how this works. Behavior is something that is just super complicated, even in insects.   So, when we look at, for example, the wasp that parasitizes orb-weaving spiders, scientists have found that in the spiders that are zombified, what the wasp does — it lays an egg on the spider. The egg hatches, and the wasp larva essentially piggybacks on the spider and drinks from it like it’s a living juice box.   And the spider just goes about its business until the larva is ready to reproduce. And then somehow the wasp larvae is manipulating the spider to think that it’s time to molt, so that the spider makes a different type of web than it normally does, something called a resting web. It’s reinforced, and it’s meant to support the spider and protect the spider while it’s molting.  And then once that web is done, the wasp larvae drains the spider dry, the spider’s empty husk of a corpse drops to the ground, and the wasp larva builds its cocoon and sets itself up in the spider’s final web to hang out until it becomes an adult wasp. What scientists found is that when spiders start making that final web, their little spider brains are being flooded with ecdysteroids, which is the hormone that the spider naturally releases when it’s ready to build a molting web. And scientists aren’t sure yet: Is the larvae actually producing the ecdysteroids? Is it somehow triggering its production in the spider through another compound? That’s something that they’re still figuring out. Why is it important to understand how this behavior manipulation works? In a lot of ways, this is looking at sort of really big questions about how behavior works, which is something that scientists are still piecing together, on so many levels for all different types of organisms, because there are so many factors that shape behavior. Some of them are genetics; some of them are biochemical; some of them have to do with environments; some of them have to do with social relationships. So, this is one way of trying to understand behavior writ large.  You mentioned that these insects suppress the immune systems of their hosts. Is there stuff that we could learn from that about how immune systems work in general? Oh yeah. Looking at the immunosuppressive aspect of zombifiers is definitely something that is a huge area of interest, because that could inform the development of immunosuppressive drugs, which is something that is just something that would be hugely beneficial to people.  Not that this should be all about what’s in it for me, but that is usually a consideration for scientific research: Could there potentially be applications for this that have medical applications? And so, there is not yet a direct line between any research into how zombifiers evade their host’s immune system and the development of some kind of pharmaceutical immunosuppressive. But that’s definitely something that is part of the mix when scientists are following that line of investigation. I think about all the insects that invade homes, some of which are beneficial, some of which are less so. Could we potentially borrow from this to fight off pests? Pest control is definitely one avenue that scientists have explored. Is there some way that we can take what we’re seeing these zombifiers do to insects and apply it to insects that we don’t like?  So baculoviruses — which are these viruses that infect caterpillars and make them climb and then dissolve their bodies into goo — this is something that has been deployed as a strategy for pest control in China and in Europe, in the US, in Brazil.  These types of viruses are an interesting alternative to traditional insecticides because they are very targeted. They’re less toxic to the environment. They’re not harmful to insects that are not their host species and they’re not toxic to people. But they’re also not as quick as I think the insecticides that people have gotten used to. And people like things to be quick and they like them to be absolute.  So what seems like the best way is perhaps to incorporate this alongside insecticides, and use this along with other approaches, because there are a lot of benefits to just going full-on zombie warfare to get rid of our agricultural pests. Could humans be zombified this way? Like, are we also susceptible to this? Well, there are some types of pathogens that are known to manipulate behavior in mammals and indeed in humans too. So rabies, of course. There have been medical cases of rabies-infected humans that are thousands of years old with documentation of heightened aggression. So there is already a virus among us that can manipulate human behavior.  And recently, there have been studies into Toxoplasma gondii, which is the pathogen that causes toxoplasmosis. Its definitive host is cats. It’s very entrenched amongst human populations. And in fact, many, many people, millions of people, carry Toxoplasma gondii, but it doesn’t cause any symptoms. It tends to be dangerous in people that are pregnant or in immunocompromised people. Most of the people who are carrying Toxoplasma gondii have no symptoms.  However, there have been studies recently in the last 10, 15 years or so, that have looked at people who are carrying the parasite and have found that there does seem to be evidence of certain types of behavior: of being more risk-taking, of being bolder. And what’s interesting about it is that Toxoplasma gondii is known for manipulating behavior in rodents. And what it does is it makes them bolder and less afraid of cats.  What? Because Toxoplasma gondii needs to reproduce inside cats. So it infects rodents, and then to get back into a cat, it makes the rodent less afraid of and attracted to the smell of cat pee. And that brings the rodent closer to a cat than it would normally go. And then once it’s eaten, then the parasite is back inside the cat.  And scientists have found that this is true for other animals too. So hyena cubs that are infected with Toxoplasma gondii are bolder around lions and are more likely to be eaten by lions. Chimpanzees that are infected with Toxoplasma gondii lose their fear of jaguars. And some studies found that people who are infected with Toxoplasma gondii are more likely to make risky business decisions or be bolder in traffic. There’s still a lot of work to be done because obviously human behavior is its own form of complicated. But there is some evidence that seems to suggest that Toxoplasma gondii can shape human behavior, too. What?  Did I just blow your mind? So there could literally at this moment be zombifiers within us shaping us in some way? It’s entirely possible. There are so many things that make us who we are that shape how we behave. There are environmental factors; there are social factors. But, you know, there might also be zombifiers.

Science
Animals
Chemicals

The pangolin: An armored, insect-controlling mammal

Covered in armor and curled in mystery, the pangolin is an endangered species in Asia and Africa. Learn more about them here. The post The pangolin: An armored, insect-controlling mammal first appeared on EarthSky.

Watch this video to learn more about the amazing pangolin. Image via A. J. T. Johnsingh/ WWF-India/ NCF/ Wikipedia (CC BY-SA 4.0). Deep within the tropical forests of Asia and Africa lives a creature that seems to have stepped out of an ancient legend. With its body covered in scales, surprisingly long tongue and curious way of walking, the pangolin is one of the most unique animals on the planet. Yet despite its striking appearance, very few have seen one in the wild. And even fewer understand its vital role in maintaining the ecological balance of its habitat. Unfortunately, the pangolin faces a serious threat. Poaching and illegal trafficking have made it the most trafficked mammal in the world. How can such an unknown animal be on the brink of extinction? To protect it, we must first get to know it. Discover why the pangolin is a truly one-of-a-kind creature. The pangolin has an almost impenetrable armor The pangolin is easily recognized by its body covered in tough scales made of keratin, the same substance found in human fingernails and rhinoceroses’ horns. These scales form a natural armor that serves as its main defense mechanism. When threatened, the pangolin curls up into a nearly impenetrable ball, protecting its most vulnerable parts. There are eight recognized species of pangolin, four in Asia and four in Africa. Although they vary in size and color, they share certain physical characteristics. They have elongated bodies, short legs with strong claws, and some species have prehensile tails. They lack teeth, which may seem like a disadvantage, but they are perfectly adapted to their insect-based diet. To stay safe, pangolins curl up into a ball, covering themselves with their hard, protective scales. Image via U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Headquarters/ Wikipedia (CC BY 2.0). How pangolins get around This animal has a curious way of walking. Although it’s a quadruped (with four legs), it often walks mainly on its hind legs, using its front legs only partially. This is because its front legs have very long, sharp claws. They use them to tear open termite mounds and anthills. To avoid wearing down or damaging these claws while moving, many pangolins walk with their wrists bent or even in a semi-upright position, relying more on their back legs. There are also arboreal (tree-dwelling) species of pangolins. These pangolins use their long, curved claws to climb tree bark. They also have prehensile tails that help them grip branches and maintain balance. Their bodies are muscular and flexible, allowing them to move easily among branches. Pangolins have strong, curved claws on their front legs, which they use for tearing open ant and termite nests. Their front legs are shorter and more muscular for digging, while their longer hind legs support walking, often with the front claws tucked under to protect them. Image via pma/ iNaturalist (CC BY 4.0). Pangolin vs. armadillo: How similar are they? At first glance, many people confuse pangolins with armadillos due to their armor-like bodies. However, these similarities are a perfect example of convergent evolution. This is when different species develop similar traits due to similar ecological needs, even though they are not closely related. Armadillos are native to the Americas, while pangolins live in Asia and Africa. Genetically and evolutionarily, they are quite distant: the armadillo belongs to the order Cingulata, along with sloths and anteaters, while the pangolin is the only member of its order (Pholidota), making it even more unique. Another major difference is their body covering. Pangolin scales are made of keratin, while the armadillo’s shell is bony and more rigid. Additionally, armadillos are strong swimmers and expert diggers, whereas pangolins are agile climbers, although some species also dig burrows. So, despite their outward similarity, they differ greatly in behavior, habitat and evolution. Many species of pangolins are excellent climbers. They use their strong claws and prehensile tails to grip branches and navigate trees with ease, especially in forested environments. What makes the pangolin special? Unlike other mammals, the pangolin has a slow metabolism and nocturnal habits, making it even harder to spot. It is a peaceful, solitary and very shy animal that prefers the quiet of forests or savannas to live its life undisturbed. The pangolin is a specialized insectivore, feeding almost exclusively on ants and termites. Its tongue can be longer than its own body! It uses its tongue to explore underground tunnels and consume insects at high speed. Plus, it produces sticky saliva to catch its prey effectively. Pangolins also play an important ecological role in their environment. They can consume up to 70 million insects per year, helping to control pests and maintain ecosystem balance. It’s a natural cleaner, essential for environmental health. Pangolins eat large numbers of ants and termites, helping to keep the environment balanced and naturally controlling pest populations. What are baby pangolins like? Despite their scaly appearance, pangolins are mammals, and their young are born alive after a gestation period of four to five months, depending on the species. Usually, the mother gives birth to a single baby, though in rare cases there may be two. At birth, the young weigh between 0.18 and 0.99 pounds (80 to 450 grams) and are already covered in scales, although they are soft and pinkish at first. Over the following days, the scales harden, forming the protective armor that defines the species. Pangolin babies are born with their eyes open and have a remarkable ability to cling to their mother from the start. During the first weeks of life, the baby stays very close to the mother. When the mother moves, the baby clings tightly to her tail, and when resting, she curls up around the baby to shield it with her body and scales. This maternal behavior is essential for the baby’s survival, as it relies completely on its mother for nourishment and protection. In the early months, it feeds exclusively on her milk, although later it begins to eat ants and termites. Sadly, both baby and adult pangolins face serious threats. Illegal trafficking – driven by the demand for their scales and meat in Asian and African markets – has put all pangolin species at risk of extinction. This is especially critical because pangolins reproduce very slowly, making population recovery extremely difficult. Mother pangolins protect their babies by curling around them, forming a protective ball with their tough, scaly bodies. The most trafficked mammal in the world: the tragedy of illegal trade Despite their shy and peaceful nature, pangolins have drawn the wrong kind of attention: they are the most trafficked mammal in the world. It is estimated that millions have been captured over recent decades, particularly in Asia, due largely to unfounded myths about their supposed medicinal properties. In some Asian cultures – especially in China and Vietnam – there is a false belief that their scales can cure diseases such as asthma, arthritis or even cancer, despite a total lack of scientific evidence. Additionally, their meat is considered a rare delicacy and a status symbol. These myths have led to indiscriminate hunting of the pangolin. This trafficking has pushed all eight pangolin species to the brink of extinction. Some, such as the Chinese and Sunda pangolins, are already critically endangered. Habitat loss, uncontrolled hunting and a lack of public awareness about their ecological importance are worsening the crisis. Sadly, pangolins are the most heavily trafficked mammals in the world, suffering from illegal trade and poaching for their scales and meat. Image via Shukran888/ Wikipedia (CC BY-SA 4.0). What’s being done to protect them? In 2016, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) completely banned international trade of pangolins. Additionally, conservation organizations and governments are promoting protection programs, environmental education and rehabilitation of rescued animals. Still, pangolins need more than laws; they need respect, awareness and action. Only through collaboration between communities, governments and global citizens can we ensure that this enigmatic forest guardian does not disappear forever. And you? Had you heard of the pangolin before reading this? Perhaps now you’ll see it with different eyes, not as a rarity, but as a symbol of the biodiversity we are either about to lose … or save. These animals are irresistibly cute and walk like tiny T. rexes, balancing on their hind legs with their front claws held up like little arms! Bottom line: Covered in armor and curled in mystery, the pangolin is an endangered species in Asia and Africa. Learn more about them here. Read more: Anteaters are vacuum-like animals: Lifeform of the week Sloths are our calm and smiley lifeform of the week Spiky porcupines are our lifeform of the weekThe post The pangolin: An armored, insect-controlling mammal first appeared on EarthSky.

Animals
Conservation
Culture

Work Advice: How to avoid ‘workslop’ and other AI pitfalls

AI at work has drawbacks such as ‘workslop,’ which can hinder productivity. Strategic AI use and transparency are top solutions.

Following my response to a reader who’s resisting a push to adopt artificial intelligence tools at work, readers shared their thoughts and experiences — pro, con and resigned — on using AI.The consensus was that some interaction with AI is unavoidable for anyone who works with technology, and that refusing to engage with it — even for principled reasons, such as the environmental harm it causes — could be career-limiting.But there’s reason to believe that generative AI in the office may not be living up to its fundamental value proposition of making us more productive.A September article in Harvard Business Review (free registration required) warns that indiscriminate AI use can result in what the article dubs “workslop”: “AI-generated work content that masquerades as good work but lacks the substance to meaningfully advance a given task.”Examples of workslop include AI-generated reports, code and emails that take more time to correct and decipher than if they had been created from scratch by a human. They’re destructive and wasteful — not only of water or electricity, but of people’s time, productivity and goodwill.“The insidious effect of workslop is that it shifts the burden of the work downstream,” the HBR researchers said.Of course, workslop existed before AI. We’ve all had our time wasted and productivity bogged down by people who dominate meetings talking about nothing, send rambling emails without reviewing them for clarity or pass half-hearted work down the line for someone else to fix. AI just allows them to do more of it, faster. And just like disinformation, once workslop enters the system, it risks polluting the pool of knowledge everyone draws from.In addition to the literal environment, AI workslop can also damage the workplace environment. The HBR researchers found that receiving workslop caused approximately half of recipients to view the sender as “less creative, capable and reliable” — even less trustworthy or intelligent.But, as mentioned above, it’s probably not wise — or feasible — to avoid using AI. “AI is embedded in your everyday tasks, from your email client, grammar checkers, type-ahead, social media clients suggesting the next emoji,” said Dean Grant from Port Angeles, Washington, whose technology career has spanned 50 years. The proper question, he said, is not how to avoid using it, but what it can do for you and how it can give you a competitive advantage.But even readers who said they use AI appropriately acknowledged its flaws and limitations, including that its implementation sometimes takes more effort than simply performing the task themselves.“[H]ow much time should I spend trying to get the AI to work? If I can do the task [without AI] in an hour, should I spend 30 minutes fumbling with the artificial stupid?” asked Matt Deter of Rocklin, California. “At what point should I cut my losses?”So it seems an unwinnable struggle. If you can’t avoid or opt out of AI altogether, how do you make sure you’re not just adding to the workslop, generating resentment and killing productivity?Don’t make AI a solution in search of a problem. This one’s for the leaders. Noting that “indiscriminate imperatives yield indiscriminate usage,” the HBR article urges leaders encouraging AI use to provide guidelines for using it “in ways that best align to the organization’s strategy, values, and vision.” As with return-to-office mandates, if leaders can articulate a purpose, and workers have autonomy to push back when the mandate doesn’t meet that purpose, the result is more likely to add value.Don’t let AI have the last word. Generating a raw summary of a meeting for your own reference is one thing; if you’re sharing it with someone else, take the time to trim the irrelevant portions, highlight the important items, and add context where needed. If you use AI to generate ideas, take time to identify the best ones and shape them to your needs.Be transparent about using AI. If you’re worried about being judged for using AI, just know that the judgment will be even harsher if you try to pass it off as your own work, or if you knowingly pass along unvetted information with no warning.Weigh convenience against conservation. If we can get in the habit of separating recyclables and programming thermostats, we can be equally mindful about our AI usage. An AI-generated 100-word email uses the equivalent of a single-use bottle of water to cool and power the data centers processing that query. Knowing that, do you need a transcript of every meeting you attend, or are you requesting one out of habit? Do you need ChatGPT to draft an email, or can you get results just as quickly over the phone? (Note to platform and software developers: Providing a giant, easy-to-find AI “off” switch wouldn’t hurt.)Step out of the loop once in a while. Try an AI detox every so often where you do your job without it, just to keep your brain limber.“I can’t deny how useful [AI has] been for research, brainstorming, and managing workloads,” said Danial Qureshi, who runs a virtual marketing and social media management agency in Islamabad, Pakistan. “But lately, I’ve also started to feel like we’re losing something important — our own creativity. Because we rely on AI so much now, I’ve noticed we don’t spend as much time thinking or exploring original ideas from scratch.”Artificial intelligence may be a fact of modern life, but there’s still nothing like the real thing.Pro Tip: Having trouble getting started with AI? Check out Post Tech at Work reporter Danielle Abril’s brilliant articles on developing AI literacy.

Business
Conservation
Technology

For the first time, we linked a new fossil fuel project to hundreds of deaths. Here’s the impact of Woodside’s Scarborough gas project

The results challenge claims that the climate risks posed by an individual fossil fuel project are negligible or cannot be quantified.

Massimo Valicchia/NurPhoto via Getty ImagesGlobal warming from Woodside’s massive Scarborough gas project off Western Australia would lead to 484 additional heat-related deaths in Europe alone this century, and kill about 16 million additional corals on the Great Barrier Reef during each future mass bleaching event, our new research has revealed. The findings were made possible by a robust, well-established formula that can determine the extent to which an individual fossil fuel project will warm the planet. The results can be used to calculate the subsequent harms to society and nature. The results close a fundamental gap between science and decision-making about fossil fuel projects. They also challenge claims by proponents that climate risks posed by a fossil fuel project are negligible or cannot be quantified. Each new investment in coal and gas, such as the Scarborough project, can now be linked to harmful effects both today and in the future. It means decision-makers can properly assess the range of risks a project poses to humanity and the planet, before deciding if it should proceed. Each new investment in coal and gas extraction can now be linked to harmful effects. Shutterstock Every tonne of CO₂ matters Scientists know every tonne of carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions makes global warming worse. But proponents of new fossil fuel projects in Australia routinely say their future greenhouse gas emissions are negligible compared to the scale of global emissions, or say the effects of these emissions on global warming can’t be measured. The Scarborough project is approved for development and is expected to produce gas from next year. Located off WA, it includes wells connected by a 430km pipeline to an onshore processing facility. The gas will be liquefied and burned for energy, both in Australia and overseas. Production is expected to last more than 30 years. When natural gas is burned, more than 99% of it converts to CO₂. Woodside – in its own evaluation of the Scarborough gas project – claimed: it is not possible to link GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions from Scarborough with climate change or any particular climate-related impacts given the estimated […] emissions associated with Scarborough are negligible in the context of existing and future predicted global GHG concentrations. But what if there was a way to measure the harms? That’s the question our research set out to answer. A method already exists to directly link global emissions to the climate warming they cause. It uses scientific understanding of Earth’s systems, direct observations and climate model simulations. According to the IPCC, every 1,000 billion tonnes of CO₂ emissions causes about 0.45°C of additional global warming. This arithmetic forms the basis for calculating how much more CO₂ humanity can emit to keep warming within the Paris Agreement goals. But decisions about future emissions are not made at the global scale. Instead, Earth’s climate trajectory will be determined by the aggregation of decisions on many individual projects. That’s why our research extended the IPCC method to the level of individual projects – an approach that we illustrate using the Scarborough gas project. Scarborough’s harms laid bare Over its lifetime, the Scarborough project is expected to emit 876 million tonnes of CO₂. We estimate these emissions will cause 0.00039°C of additional global warming. Estimates such as these are typically expressed as a range, alongside a measure of confidence in the projection. In this case, there is a 66–100% likelihood that the Scarborough project will cause additional global warming of between 0.00024°C and 0.00055°C. This additional warming might seem small – but it will cause tangible damage. The human cost of global warming can be quantified by considering how many people will be left outside the “human climate niche” – in other words, the climate conditions in which societies have historically thrived. We calculated that the additional warming from the Scarborough project will expose 516,000 people globally to a local climate that’s beyond the hot extreme of the human climate niche. We drilled down into specific impacts in Europe, where suitable health data was available across 854 cities. Our best estimate is that this project would cause an additional 484 heat-related deaths in Europe by the end of this century. The project would cause an additional 484 heat-related deaths in Europe by the end of this century. Antonio Masiello/Getty Images And what about harm to nature? Using research into how accumulated exposure to heat affects coral reefs, we found about 16 million corals on the Great Barrier Reef would be lost in each new mass bleaching. The existential threat to the Great Barrier Reef from human-caused global warming is already being realised. Additional warming instigated by new fossil fuel projects will ratchet up pressure on this natural wonder. As climate change worsens, countries are seeking to slash emissions to meet their commitments under the Paris Agreement. So, we looked at the impact of Scarborough’s emissions on Australia’s climate targets. We calculated that by 2049, the anticipated emissions from the Scarborough project alone – from production, processing and domestic use – will comprise 49% of Australia’s entire annual CO₂ emissions budget under our commitment to net-zero by 2050. Beyond the 2050 deadline, all emissions from the Scarborough project would require technologies to permanently remove CO₂ from the atmosphere. Achieving that would require a massive scale-up of current technologies. It would be more prudent to reduce greenhouse gas emissions where possible. ‘Negligible’ impacts? Hardly Our findings mean the best-available scientific evidence can now be used by companies, governments and regulators when deciding if a fossil fuel project will proceed. Crucially, it is no longer defensible for companies proposing new or extended fossil fuel projects to claim the climate harms will be negligible. Our research shows the harms are, in fact, tangible and quantifiable – and no project is too small to matter. In response to issues raised in this article, a spokesperson for Woodside said: Woodside is committed to playing a role in the energy transition. The Scarborough reservoir contains less than 0.1% carbon dioxide. Combined with processing design efficiencies at the offshore floating production unit and onshore Pluto Train 2, the project is expected to be one of the lowest carbon intensity sources of LNG delivered into north Asian markets. We will reduce the Scarborough Energy Project’s direct greenhouse gas emissions to as low as reasonably practicable by incorporating energy efficiency measures in design and operations. Further information on how this is being achieved is included in the Scarborough Offshore Project Proposal, sections 4.5.4.1 and 7.1.3 and in approved Australian Government environment plans, available on the regulator’s website. A report prepared by consultancy ACIL Allen has found that Woodside’s Scarborough Energy Project is expected to generate an estimated A$52.8 billion in taxation and royalty payments, boost GDP by billions of dollars between 2024 and 2056 and employ 3,200 people during peak construction in Western Australia. Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick receives funding from the Australian Research CouncilAndrew King receives funding from the Australian Research Council (Future Fellowship and Centre of Excellence for 21st Century Weather) and the National Environmental Science Program. Nicola Maher receives funding from the Australian Research Council. Wesley Morgan is a fellow with the Climate Council of Australia

Climate
CO2
Government

Senators press EPA chemical chief nominee on speeding up TSCA

Douglas Troutman faced a divisive Senate hearing last week on his nomination to lead the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. Democrats voiced concerns about Troutman’s ties to industry while Republicans praised his experience as valuable for the agency role.

Douglas Troutman faced a divisive Senate hearing last week on his nomination to lead the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. Democrats voiced concerns about Troutman’s ties to industry while Republicans praised his experience as valuable for the agency role.

Chemicals
Pollution

Can you really be addicted to food? Researchers uncover convincing similarities to drug addiction

Hundreds of studies have confirmed that certain foods affect the brain similarly to other addictive substances

People often joke that their favorite snack is “like crack” or call themselves “chocoholics” in jest. But can someone really be addicted to food in the same way they could be hooked on substances such as alcohol or nicotine? As an addiction psychiatrist and researcher with experience in treating eating disorders and obesity, I have been following the research in this field for the past few decades. I have written a textbook on food addiction, obesity and overeating disorders, and, more recently, a self-help book for people who have intense cravings and obsessions for some foods. While there is still some debate among psychologists and scientists, a consensus is emerging that food addiction is a real phenomenon. Hundreds of studies have confirmed that certain foods – often those that are high in sugar and ultraprocessed – affect the brains and behavior of certain people similarly to other addictive substances such as nicotine. Still, many questions remain about which foods are addictive, which people are most susceptible to this addiction and why. There are also questions as to how this condition compares to other substance addictions and whether the same treatments could work for patients struggling with any kind of addiction. How does addiction work? The neurobiological mechanisms of addiction have been mapped out through decades of laboratory-based research using neuroimaging and cognitive neuroscience approaches. Studies show that preexisting genetic and environmental factors set the stage for developing an addiction. Regularly consuming an addictive substance then causes a rewiring of several important brain systems, leading the person to crave more and more of it. This rewiring takes place in three key brain networks that correspond to key functional domains, often referred to as the reward system, the stress response system and the system in charge of executive control. First, using an addictive substance causes the release of a chemical messenger called dopamine in the reward network, which makes the user feel good. Dopamine release also facilitates a neurobiological process called conditioning, which is basically a neural learning process that gives rise to habit formation. As a result of the conditioning process, sensory cues associated with the substance start to have increasing influence over decision-making and behavior, often leading to a craving. For instance, because of conditioning, the sight of a needle can drive a person to set aside their commitment to quit using an injectable drug and return to it. Second, continued use of an addictive substance over time affects the brain’s emotional or stress response network. The user’s body and mind build up a tolerance, meaning they need increasing amounts of the substance to feel its effect. The neurochemicals involved in this process are different than those mediating habit formation and include a chemical messenger called noradrenaline and internally produced opioids such as endorphins. If they quit using the substance, they experience symptoms of withdrawal, which can range from irritability and nausea to paranoia and seizures. At that point, negative reinforcement kicks in. This is the process by which a person keeps going back to a substance because they’ve learned that using the substance doesn’t just feel good, but it also relieves negative emotions. During withdrawal from a substance, people feel profound emotional discomfort, including sadness and irritability. Negative reinforcement is why someone who is trying to quit smoking, for instance, will be at highest risk of relapse in the week just after stopping and during times of stress, because in the past they’d normally turn to cigarettes for relief. Third, overuse of most addictive substances progressively damages the brain’s executive control network, the prefrontal cortex, and other key parts of the brain involved in impulse control and self-regulation. Over time, the damage to these areas makes it more and more difficult for the user to control their behavior around these substances. This is why it is so hard for long-term users of many addictive substances to quit. Scientists have learned more about what’s happening in a person’s brain when they become addicted to a substance. What evidence is there that food is addictive? Many studies over the past 25 years have shown that high-sugar and other highly pleasurable foods – often foods that are ultraprocessed – act on these brain networks in ways that are similar to other addictive substances. The resulting changes in the brain fuel further craving for and overuse of the substance – in this case, highly rewarding food. Clinical studies have demonstrated that people with an addictive relationship to food demonstrate the hallmark signs of a substance use disorder. Studies also indicate that for some people, cravings for highly palatable foods go well beyond just a normal hankering for a snack and are, in fact, signs of addictive behavior. One study found that cues associated with highly pleasurable foods activate the reward centers in the brain, and the degree of activation predicts weight gain. In other words, the more power the food cue has to capture a person’s attention, the more likely they are to succumb to cravings for it. Multiple studies have also found that suddenly ending a diet that’s high in sugar can cause withdrawal, similar to when people quit opioids or nicotine. Excessive exposure to high-sugar foods has also been found to reduce cognitive function and cause damage to the prefrontal cortex and hippocampus, the parts of the brain that mediate executive control and memory. In another study, when obese people were exposed to food and told to resist their craving for it by ignoring it or thinking about something else, their prefrontal cortexes were more active compared with nonobese individuals. This indicates that it was more difficult for the obese group to fight their cravings. Researchers are still working out the best methods to help patients with food addictions develop a healthy relationship with food. Viktar Sarkisian/iStock via Getty Images Plus Finding safe treatments for patients struggling with food Addiction recovery is often centered on the idea that the fastest way to get well is to abstain from the problem substance. But unlike nicotine or narcotics, food is something that all people need to survive, so quitting cold turkey isn’t an option. In addition, eating disorders such as bulimia nervosa and binge-eating disorder often occur alongside addictive eating. Most psychologists and psychiatrists believe these illnesses have their root cause in excessive dietary restriction. For this reason, many eating disorder treatment professionals balk at the idea of labeling some foods as addictive. They are concerned that encouraging abstinence from particular foods could trigger binge eating and extreme dieting to compensate. A way forward But others argue that, with care, integrating food addiction approaches into eating disorders treatment is feasible and could be lifesaving for some. The emerging consensus around this link is moving researchers and those who treat eating disorders to consider food addiction in their treatment models. One such approach might look like the one described to me by addiction psychiatrist and eating disorders specialist Dr. Kim Dennis. In line with traditional eating disorder treatment, nutritionists at her residential clinic strongly discourage their patients from restricting calories. At the same time, in line with traditional addiction treatment, they help their patients to consider significantly reducing or completely abstaining from particular foods to which they have developed an addictive relationship. Additional clinical studies are already being carried out. But going forward, more studies are needed to help clinicians find the most effective treatments for people with an addictive relationship with food. Efforts are underway by groups of psychologists, psychiatrists, neuroscientists and mental health providers to get “ultraprocessed food use disorder,” also known as food addiction, into future editions of diagnostic manuals such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Diseases. Beyond acknowledging what those treating food addiction are already seeing in the field, this would help researchers get funding for additional studies of treating food addiction. With more information about what treatments will work best for whom, those who have these problems will no longer have to suffer in silence, and providers will be better equipped to help them.   Claire Wilcox, Adjunct Faculty in Psychiatry, University of New Mexico This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The post Can you really be addicted to food? Researchers uncover convincing similarities to drug addiction appeared first on Salon.com.

Food
Chemicals
Science

Emissions linked to Woodside’s Scarborough gas project could lead to at least 480 deaths, research suggests

Scientists have examined the $16.5bn project’s climate impact and found it could expose more than half a million people to unprecedented heatSign up for climate and environment editor Adam Morton’s free Clear Air newsletter hereGreenhouse emissions linked to a gas field being developed by Australian fossil fuel company Woodside could lead to the death of at least 480 people and expose more than half a million to unprecedented heat, new research suggests.Scientists from six universities have examined the climate impact of the $16.5bn Scarborough project, which is expected to start production off the northern Western Australian coast next year and could result in 876m tonnes of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere over three decades. Continue reading...

Greenhouse emissions linked to a gas field being developed by Australian fossil fuel company Woodside could lead to the death of at least 480 people and expose more than half a million to unprecedented heat, new research suggests.Scientists from six universities have examined the climate impact of the $16.5bn Scarborough project, which is expected to start production off the northern Western Australian coast next year and could result in 876m tonnes of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere over three decades.Emissions from the project would contribute 0.00039C to global heating, they estimate. Using recently developed techniques known as climate attribution, they suggest that fraction of warming would expose an additional 516,000 people globally to unprecedented heat, and result in the loss of an extra 16m coral colonies in the Great Barrier Reef in every future bleaching event.It would also push 356,000 people outside the “human climate niche” – the reasonable zone for human survival, with an upper limit for average annual temperature of 29C.The study, published in the journal Climate Action, forms part of a new focus in climate science that aims to quantify the impacts of individual fossil fuel projects and emitters.A Woodside spokesperson said the company would reduce the Scarborough project’s “direct greenhouse gas emissions to as low as reasonably practicable by incorporating energy efficiency measures in design and operations”.“Climate change is caused by the net global concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere,” they added. “It cannot be attributed to any one event, country, industry or activity.” Sign up to get climate and environment editor Adam Morton’s Clear Air column as a free newsletterBut study co-author Andrew King, an associate professor in climate science at the University of Melbourne, said the research illustrated that individual projects had tangible climate impacts.“Often the argument made for individual projects that would involve greenhouse gas emissions is that they are quite small [in the global context],” he said. “But really, especially with larger fossil fuel projects, we can very clearly say that the impacts are not negligible.”Study co-author Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick, a professor of climate science at the Australian National University, said that given Australia’s emission reductions requirements, in the coming decades Scarborough would also constitute a greater proportion of the country’s CO2 emissions budget.“By 2049, assuming that the Scarborough project emits the same amount year on year, it’s going to be chewing up half of our emissions budget,” Perkins-Kirkpatrick said. “That’s the stuff that we burn here, let alone what we export overseas.”Beyond 2050, emissions from Scarborough would require CO2 removal from the atmosphere – “technologies that either don’t exist yet, or that we can’t scale up”, she said.skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Clear Air AustraliaAdam Morton brings you incisive analysis about the politics and impact of the climate crisisPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionUnder a middle-of-the-road emissions scenario, warming contributed by Scarborough would cause an additional 484 heat-related deaths in Europe alone by the end of the century, the researchers calculated. Taking into account a reduction in cold-related deaths in Europe, they estimate a net contribution of 118 additional deaths.The researchers calculated the project’s climate impacts with a tool used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, called the Transient Climate Response to CO2 Emissions (TCRE). The TCRE estimates that every 1,000 gigatonnes of CO2 emissions causes 0.45C of additional global heating.Scarborough’s contribution to global heating had a likely range between 0.00024C and 0.00055C, the study’s authors estimated, but they noted “direct measurement of global mean temperature changes is not possible with this level of precision”.The approach could be used by governments and companies to assess whether future “projects fall within acceptable levels of environmental and societal risk”, the researchers suggest. The tool “could be part of the process for determining whether a project should be approved”, King said.Yuming Guo, a professor of global environmental health and biostatistics at Monash University, who was not involved in the study, said the study provided “a valuable tool for conducting environmental risk assessments”.“Considering the vast number of fossil fuel projects operating globally, the cumulative contribution of these emissions to climate change is substantial and should not be overlooked,” he said.Dr Kat O’Mara, a senior lecturer in environmental management and sustainability at Edith Cowan University, who was not part of the study, said: “With the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion a few months ago that countries need to take action to protect the climate, this new research reinforces the need to consider climate impacts beyond just how much carbon is being produced.”

Climate
CO2
Energy

Climate Tipping Points Are Being Crossed, Scientists Warn Ahead of COP30

By Alison WithersCOPENHAGEN (Reuters) -Global warming is crossing dangerous thresholds sooner than expected with the world’s coral reefs now in an...

COPENHAGEN (Reuters) -Global warming is crossing dangerous thresholds sooner than expected with the world’s coral reefs now in an almost irreversible die-off, marking what scientists on Monday described as the first “tipping point” in climate-driven ecosystem collapse. The warning in the Global Tipping Points report by 160 researchers worldwide, which synthesizes groundbreaking science to estimate points of no return, comes just weeks ahead of this year's COP30 climate summit being held at the edge of the Amazon rainforest in Brazil.That same rainforest system is now at risk of collapsing once the average global temperature warms beyond just 1.5 degrees Celsius based on deforestation rates, the report said, revising down the estimated threshold for the Amazon.Also of concern if temperatures keep rising is the threat of disruption to the major ocean current called the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, or AMOC, which helps to ensure mild winters in northern Europe.“Change is happening fast now, tragically, in parts of the climate, the biosphere,” said environmental scientist Tim Lenton at the University of Exeter, who is the lead author of the report.Lenton noted positive signs when it came to phasing out the fossil fuels most responsible for climate change. Renewables, for example, accounted for more electricity generation than coal this year for the first time, according to data from the nonprofit think tank Ember.“Nobody wants to be just traumatized and disempowered,” Lenton said. “We still have some agency.”The scientists implored countries at November's COP30 to work toward bringing down climate-warming carbon emissions.Scientists have been surprised by how quickly changes are unfolding in nature, with average global temperatures already having warmed by 1.3-1.4 degrees Celsius (2.3 to 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit) above the preindustrial average, according to data from U.N. and EU science agencies.The last two years were Earth’s warmest on record, with marine heatwaves that stressed 84% of the world’s reefs to the point of bleaching and, in some cases, death. Coral reefs sustain about a quarter of marine life.For corals to recover, the world would need to drastically ramp up climate action to reverse temperatures back down to just 1 degree C above the preindustrial average, the scientists suggested.“The new report makes clear that each year there is an increase in the scope and magnitude of the negative impacts of climate change,” said Pep Canadell, a senior scientist at Australia’s CSIRO Climate Science Centre.The world is currently on track for about 3.1 degrees C of warming in this century, based on national policies.(Reporting by Ali Withers; Editing by Kirsten Donovan)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.

Climate
Forests
Science

The Guardian view on Labour targeting nature: the problem isn’t snails, but a broken housing model | Editorial

Rachel Reeves’s drive to speed up development is beginning to treat wildlife and the environment as expendable. Voters want homes built, but not at any costIt began with gastropods. Last Tuesday, the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, told a conference of tech executives that she’d intervened to help a developer build about 20,000 homes in north Sussex that had been held up, she said, by “some snails … a protected species or something”. She added that they “are microscopic … you cannot even see” them.No one could miss the direction the chancellor was headed in. The snail in question, the lesser whirlpool ramshorn, is one of Britain’s rarest freshwater creatures, found in only a handful of locations and highly sensitive to sewage pollution. But Ms Reeves portrayed it as a bureaucratic nuisance. She then bragged that she’d fixed it – after a friendly developer gave her a call. It’s a bad look for a Labour politician, let alone the chancellor, to boast that green rules can be bent for chums. Continue reading...

It began with gastropods. Last Tuesday, the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, told a conference of tech executives that she’d intervened to help a developer build about 20,000 homes in north Sussex that had been held up, she said, by “some snails … a protected species or something”. She added that they “are microscopic … you cannot even see” them.No one could miss the direction the chancellor was headed in. The snail in question, the lesser whirlpool ramshorn, is one of Britain’s rarest freshwater creatures, found in only a handful of locations and highly sensitive to sewage pollution. But Ms Reeves portrayed it as a bureaucratic nuisance. She then bragged that she’d fixed it – after a friendly developer gave her a call. It’s a bad look for a Labour politician, let alone the chancellor, to boast that green rules can be bent for chums.The scheme was given the go-ahead a day before drought was declared in Sussex, potentially giving water companies cover to breach their licence obligations – including measures meant to protect the snails. Ms Reeves won’t like being compared to Liz Truss, but the analogy works. Three years ago, Ms Truss railed against an “anti-growth coalition” of environmentalists, lawyers and regulators who, she claimed, were blocking Britain’s path to prosperity. Ms Reeves is framing the issue the same way: growth is the priority, nature the obstacle.But the public don’t agree. Luke Tryl of More in Common told a Conservative conference fringe meeting that most Britons can’t be categorised as “nimby” or “yimby”. They want both: to build and also to protect the countryside. However, when asked whether wildlife should be protected even if it delays or raises the cost of infrastructure, every single voter group – including Labour, Conservative and Reform UK – chose wildlife. Among the general public, 62% prioritised nature protection while 18% sided with building at any cost.The Treasury reportedly plans to gut green rules with amendments to its planning and infrastructure bill – ditching the precautionary principle, slashing species protections and curbing legal challenges. The bill, currently in the Lords, already allows developers to bypass environmental obligations by paying into a fund to offset damage elsewhere. Under its “environmental delivery plans”, ministers could disapply environmental protections in exchange for vague promises of ecological improvement within 10 years.Labour, significantly, is turning its back on the work of the Dasgupta review. This argues that nature is not a constraint on growth but its foundation, a form of capital on which the economy depends. Labour is not only rejecting that view but deluding itself by claiming housebuilding will be accelerated by dismissing concerns around conservation. The Wildlife Trusts points out that more than a million homes already have planning permission since 2015, but remain unbuilt. The real barriers to housebuilding are skills shortages, hoarded land and slow delivery. They need sorting out. Blaming snails, it would seem, is easier.Many of Labour’s younger voters are already tempted by the Green party, which combines environmentalism and leftwing economics. Now, by mocking green protections and cosying up to developers, the chancellor is giving these voters more reasons to jump ship. The problem isn’t the planning system. It’s a broken, profit-driven housing model that banks land and starves supply. Scrapping nature protections won’t build 1.5m homes, it will just bulldoze public trust and the countryside.

Nature
Pollution
Water

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.