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

Saving Zimbabwe’s Vultures

From poisonings to collisions with power lines, these birds face many threats. But as they decline, so does their ability to control the spread of deadly diseases. The post Saving Zimbabwe’s Vultures appeared first on The Revelator.

A narrow road meanders through Zimbabwe’s Vumba Mountains, where sweet songs of various bird species fill the air on a sunny afternoon. The distant chatter of monkeys adds to this wildlife melody. But one sound, once common, no longer echoes over the mountains: the calls of soaring vultures. These majestic birds have disappeared from this part of Zimbabwe. Big game poachers despise vultures for circling over the carcasses of dead animals — a natural process that inadvertently “snitches” poachers’ illicit activities to game park rangers. Poachers have retaliated by lacing the bodies of their prey with deadly poison, which vultures consume, dramatically increasing the killers’ body counts. That’s not the only threat these birds face. Habitat loss is a big issue. In some cases vultures are killed for their parts, which are used in traditional “medicine” in some cultures of Zimbabwe. And to a lesser extent, power lines have also killed vultures, who die from electrocution or after collisions with the structures. The threats have all but wiped out the vultures, in this area known for its birds. “Birding in the Vumba as well as the Burma Valley area [in Zimbabwe] is considered a shining jewel in the Eastern Highlands, and tourists travel far and wide for the very special birds found here. However, vultures are no longer a presence,” says Sue Fenwick, a trustee of the Friends of the Vumba, an organization working to protect wildlife in the area. The group’s mission faces many challenges. In this part of Zimbabwe, illegal farming activities have decimated vast tracts of wildlife habitats. Benhildah Antonio, who manages the Preventing Extinctions Program at Birdlife Zimbabwe, says the twin threats of farming and poisons intersect. In addition to poachers’ poisons, Antonio says vultures are often poisoned unintentionally. This is prevalent in farming communities surrounding national parks, where lions prey on livestock. “Farmers put poison on carcasses to target lions or any other predators but unintentionally end up poisoning vultures,” Antonio says. “The vultures will die in large numbers because of their feeding habits. One carcass can have 50 or more vultures feeding on it.” A Loss That Echoes Vultures’ disappearance from Zimbabwe and other African countries comes with an environmental cost. “We call them the ‘clean-up crew,’” says Antonio. “When the vultures feed on dead carcasses, they help us with cleaning the environment; they help us with sanitation. That’s the main ecosystem service we get from vultures. They do this free service. They also reduce the spread of … rabies, anthrax, tuberculosis, and other diseases.” When vultures eat a carcass, they can digest pathogens without getting sick. At the same time, vultures reduce the available food sources for feral dogs and other scavengers, thereby suppressing diseases like rabies. Many Species, Similar Threats According to Birdlife Zimbabwe, Africa is home to 11 vulture species, six of which can be found in Zimbabwe. All but one of the species in Zimbabwe are threatened or endangered. The International Union of Conservation of Nature Red List, which assesses the conservation status of species around the world, classifies the white-backed vulture, white-headed vulture, and hooded vulture as critically endangered. The lappet-faced vulture and cape vulture are categorized as endangered and “vulnerable to extinction” respectively, while the palm-nut vulture is listed as “least concern” (although it was last assessed a decade ago). Regardless of their conservation status, all vultures in Zimbabwe have special protection under the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Act, making it illegal to kill a vulture, even in cases of accidental harm.   View this post on Instagram   A post shared by Jeannee Sacken (@authorjeanneesacken) The six species have specific habitat niches, but many of their ranges overlap in Zimbabwe. The lappet-faced vulture breeds in Lowveld semi-arid areas like Gonarezhou National Park, while the white-headed vulture breeds in Hwange National Park and Gonarezhou. Cape vultures rely on cliffs for breeding and roosting, particularly in the central parts of the country. The hooded vulture breeds in low-lying areas of Tsholotsho and Gokwe. Palm-nut vultures, though considered rare in Zimbabwe, are seen mostly in the country’s Eastern Highlands. But no matter where they’re found, they face the same dangers — and vultures’ declines aren’t unique to Zimbabwe. A Worldwide Threat José Tavares, director of the Vulture Conservation Foundation, says the major threats to vultures in Africa and globally come from the ingestion of poison baits. “These [poison baits] are mostly put to deal with human-wildlife conflict, although in Southern Africa sentinel poisoning has also been significant,” Tavares says, referring to the poisoning to prevent circling vultures from giving away poachers’ locations. “The illegal poisoning of wildlife is a non-discriminatory measure that has a profound impact.” Zimbabwe presents a powerful illustration of the problem. According to the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority (Zimparks) 2019-2022 Action Plan, the country experienced increased vulture poisoning incidents that are causing vulture populations to decline and harming other species. Mass poisoning events cited in the report include 191 vultures in Gonarezhou National Park in 2012, 40 at a farm in Fort Rixon in 2014, 22 in Sinamatella in 2015, 43 at Sentinel Ranch in 2016, 94 on the border of Gonarezhou National Park in 2017, 24 at Sengwa Wildlife Research Station in 2017, 28 in Main Camp in 2018, and 21 in Hwange National Park in 2019. There is no recent data from Zimparks covering the post-COVID period. According to former Zimparks director Fulton Mangwanya, a single vulture provides over US$11,000 worth of ecosystem services. “By halting the spread of disease, they are worth much more to society in saved health service costs, not to mention contributing significant revenue to the tourism sector as well,” Mangwanya wrote in the action plan. This poses direct threats to humans. In India, for example, one study reveals that between 2000 and 2005, the loss of vultures caused around 100,000 additional human deaths annually, resulting in more than £53 billion per year in mortality damages, or the economic costs associated with premature deaths. These deaths, experts say, were due to the spread of disease and bacteria that vultures could have otherwise removed from the environment. Has the decline in vultures caused similar problems in Zimbabwe? Kerri Wolter, chief executive officer of VulPro, a South African nonprofit organization devoted to safeguarding Africa’s vulture species, says it’s impossible to link the recent outbreak of anthrax in Gonarezhou National Park to the massive poisoning deaths of 280 vultures in the park in the past few years. The anthrax outbreak last year killed more than 120 animals, including four elephants, 75 buffaloes, and 38 kudus. However, more studies are needed on the possible link between the declining vulture population in Zimbabwe and rising cases of anthrax in the country’s national parks. But Wolter says the future of these birds is dire and the threat of vulture species’ extinctions is a very real possibility. “If we cannot get a grip on poisonings, I fear we will continue to see losses and some species disappearing,” she says. Saving Zimbabwe’s Vultures With an understanding of these threats, local and international groups have mobilized several efforts in Zimbabwe that aim to save the country’s last vultures. Birdlife Zimbabwe, for example, is working with communities to resolve human-wildlife conflict issues so they don’t end up causing vulture deaths as collateral damage. “We have created vulture support groups in [Zimbabwe’s] Gwayi area, where community members do vulture monitoring and educate other community members about vulture conservation,” Antonio says. “We are also educating and building capacity for law-enforcement agents so that they are conscious about vulture conservation and crimes against vultures. We also work with traditional healers because of belief-based use of vultures in traditional medicines.” And Tavares says the Vulture Conservation Foundation is fighting illegal poisoning through engaging with the competent authorities for the proper enforcement of the law and adequate investigation of illegal poisoning incidents to reduce impunity. Wolter says their work impacts the whole Southern Africa region. “We lead by example and have assisted, trained, and worked with Victoria Falls Wildlife Trust and Jabulani Safaris [in Zimbabwe] and continue to do so,” she says. Other efforts, including one funded by tourism, help vultures by giving them what they need most: safe food. The Victoria Falls Safari Collection, operated by the Africa Albida Tourism hospitality group, runs the Vulture Culture Experience at Victoria Falls Safari Lodge, where the birds are provided with food, typically animal carcasses, to support their survival and well-being.   View this post on Instagram   A post shared by Estnat Engsted (@ekewildphotography) “Our … conservation initiative has been highly successful in providing a safe food source for hundreds of vultures every day and reducing the risks of poisoning they face in the wild,” says Anald Musonza, head of sales and marketing at Victoria Falls Safari Collection. Musonza says the program has also become a powerful educational platform, where thousands of visitors learn about the plight of these highly endangered raptors and turn into ambassadors for vulture conservation. “Even when our hotels stood still during COVID, the Vulture Culture Experience never stopped — that’s how seriously we take conservation,” Musonza says. He says they work with VulPro as well as the Victoria Falls Wildlife Trust on this project. “While the activity is free of charge, guests may make donations towards vulture research, and $1 from selected dishes at our MaKuwa-Kuwa Restaurant is donated to vulture conservation programs,” he says. Musonza says their biggest challenges have been in constantly raising awareness of the threats vultures face and the significant role they play in the ecosystem. “The poisoning of these birds is also of great concern, which is why education plays a crucial role in this conservation initiative,” Musonza says. Previously in The Revelator: Newest Flock of Wild California Condors Faces an Old Threat: Lead Poisoning The post Saving Zimbabwe’s Vultures appeared first on The Revelator.

Tour operator Intrepid drops carbon offsets and emissions targets

Firm will instead invest A$2m a year in ‘climate impact fund’ supporting renewables and switching to EVsOne of the travel industry’s most environmentally focused tour operators, Intrepid, is scrapping carbon offsets and abandoning its emissions targets as unreachable.The Australian-headquartered global travel company said it will instead invest A$2m a year in an audited “climate impact fund” supporting immediate practical measures such as switching to electric vehicles and investing in renewable energy. Continue reading...

One of the travel industry’s most environmentally focused tour operators, Intrepid, is scrapping carbon offsets and abandoning its emissions targets as unreachable.The Australian-headquartered global travel company said it will instead invest A$2m a year in an audited “climate impact fund” supporting immediate practical measures such as switching to electric vehicles and investing in renewable energy.Intrepid, which specialises in small group tours, said it was stopping carbon offsets and “stepping away” from the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), after having committed to 2030 goals monitored by the climate-certification organisation five years ago.In an open letter to staff, the Intrepid co-founder and chair, Darrell Wade, and the chief executive, James Thornton, told staff: “Intrepid, and frankly the entire travel industry, is not on track to achieve a 1.5C future, and more urgent action is required if we are to get even close.”While Intrepid’s brand focuses on the low impact of its group tours, it has long conceded that its bigger footprint is the flights its customers take to reach them, with Wade also admitting two years ago that its offsets were “not credible”.The letter blamed governments that “failed to act on ambitious policies on renewable energy or sustainable aviation fuels that support the scale of change that is required”, adding: “We are not comfortable maintaining a target that we know we won’t meet.”Thornton said the change should build trust through transparency rather than losing customers by admitting its climate pledges had not worked. He told the Guardian: “We were the first global tour operator to adopt a science-based target through the SBTi and now we’re owning the fact that it’s not working for us. We’ve always been real and transparent, which is how we build trust.”He said the fund and a new target to cut the “carbon intensity” of each trip had been developed by climate scientists and would be verified by independent auditors.Part of that attempt would be to reduce the number of long-haul flights taken by customers, Thornton said, by prioritising domestic and short-haul trips, and offering more flight-free itineraries and walking or trekking tours.Environmental campaigners have long dismissed offsets and focused on cutting flying. Dr Douglas Parr, the Greenpeace UK chief scientist, said offsetting schemes had allowed “airlines and other big polluters to falsely claim green credentials while continuing to pump out emissions”.He said Greenpeace backed a frequent flyer levy, with a first flight each year tax-free to avoid taxing an annual family holiday but rising steeply with subsequent flights to deter “the binge flyers who are the main engine of growth for UK flights”.Intrepid’s Thornton said he saw “first-hand how important meaningful climate action is to our founders and owners, who see it as part of their legacy”, but added: “We need to be honest with ourselves that travel is not sustainable in its current format and anything suggesting otherwise is greenwashing.”

Oil refinery closures leave workers searching for a job that ‘just doesn’t exist’

For the refinery workers being laid off — most of whom lack a college degree — it’s unlikely they’ll find another job that pays as well, despite recent efforts by the state to help.

In summary For the refinery workers being laid off — most of whom lack a college degree — it’s unlikely they’ll find another job that pays as well, despite recent efforts by the state to help. Wilfredo Cruz went to the doctor in October of last year to have his brain scanned because he was experiencing vertigo — a dangerous condition when you’re a refinery worker like Cruz and your job entails climbing 200-foot towers and fixing heavy machinery.  While he waited at the doctor’s office, he picked up his phone and felt a moment of panic, seeing 100 unread text messages in the last hour.  The Phillips 66 refinery complex in Los Angeles had just said that it was going to close, and Cruz learned in that moment that he would eventually lose his job, along with nearly 1,000 other employees and contractors.  “It was a big shock, a gut punch,” said Cruz, who thinks his last day will be sometime in April. Workers say layoff notices will begin to go out in the next few months.  It’s just one of a handful of refineries that have closed or that intend to close in the coming months. For the workers — most of whom lack a college degree — it’s unlikely they’ll find another job that pays as well, despite recent efforts by the state to help. Though the Trump administration signed legislation creating billions of dollars in tax cuts for oil and gas companies, it’s not going to save these jobs or offer the workers any money to train for new ones.  “You have people earning between $80,000 to $200,000 a year, and almost everyone is a high school graduate and that’s it,” said Cruz. “To go out and look for another job that’s even somewhat comparable, it just doesn’t exist.”  When he isn’t at the refinery, Cruz is wearing a plain black shirt, shorts, and New Balance sneakers — anything that’s easy to clean if his 2-year old son throws food at him, he said. His vertigo is better these days, almost a year after the refinery said it would close, but he now has to find a job so he can support his family and pay his mortgage. The best bet, he said, is to go back to school and start a new career in cybersecurity. Thousands of jobs lost California has about 100,000 workers in the fossil fuel industry, according to an August report by the Public Policy Institute of California. That’s about the population of a small city, such as Merced or Redding. As the state continues its transition to renewable energy, many of those jobs may disappear — and some already have. Refineries have been closing all across the U.S. in recent years, but California has been hit hard, especially in Contra Costa County, Solano County and parts of southern Los Angeles, near Long Beach. First it was the Marathon refinery in Contra Costa County in 2020, which put hundreds of people out of work before the plant converted to renewable fuels with a fraction of the former workforce. Then Phillips 66 began shifting one of its Contra Costa County refineries to renewables and closed an affiliated plant on the Central Coast. A Valero refinery in Solano County is also expected to close in the next few months, leading to more layoffs. Publicly, oil companies have given vague justifications for the closures, though oil industry advocates, such as the Western States Petroleum Association, blame the state’s increased regulation and its renewable energy transition. Environmental groups point to the decrease in oil demand as more Californians turn to electric vehicles.  With thousands of jobs at stake, Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Democratic-led state Legislature this summer tried to strike a deal with Valero to avoid the closure of its Solano County refinery. Those conversations are still “ongoing,” said Daniel Villaseñor, the deputy director of communications for the governor.  What the state has offered so far is a $30 million pot of money, which refinery workers can use to train for new jobs. The money went out to four different workforce organizations last February, and they have until 2027 to distribute it to workers in various ways, such as through scholarships.   First: Workers cross a street as smoke billows from a fire at the Martinez Refinery Company in Martinez in Contra Costa County on Feb. 1, 2025. Last: A worker stands atop a tank car that carries liquefied petroleum gas at the Marathon Martinez Refinery on April 27, 2020. Photos by Jose Carlos Fajardo, Bay Area News Group The United Steelworkers union, which represents many of the Phillips 66 refinery workers, received about a third of the money and recruited Cruz to help find eligible workers at his job. Some of his colleagues are trying to become truck drivers, emergency medical technicians, or radiologists, but the state money rarely covers all the training expenses, he said.  In his spare time, Cruz is enrolled in an online, year-long certificate program in cybersecurity at UC San Diego and is using the state money to cover the $4,000 tuition. He said he wants a remote job, something that would allow him to spend more time with his son.  The steelworkers union has pushed Newsom for much more, ideally “hundreds of millions of dollars per year” to help retrain the refinery workers it represents, said Mike Smith, the national bargaining chair for the union. The governor has yet to make any new promises.  Six-figure salary, no degree required The average work day at a refinery might entail crawling into small spaces, withstanding searing heat, or operating heavy machinery with precision. And it can be dangerous: In 2006, the roof of a storage tank collapsed, killing one person and injuring four others at the Phillips 66 refinery complex in Los Angeles, which was then owned by an earlier iteration of the company.   Twelve-hour shifts are the norm, including many night shifts, and overtime is common. Nearby residents complain that the Phillips 66 facilities have a foul smell and that they pump cancer-causing chemicals into the air, creating health risks for the entire community. Workers are required to wear full-body fire retardant uniforms each day because fires are a constant risk, such as last week, when an explosion rocked a Chevron refinery in El Segundo. There was no major damage. Flames and smoke from a large fire rises from the Chevron refinery in El Segundo on Oct. 2, 2025. Photo by Daniel Cole, Reuters Though the work can be physically demanding, the rewards are plentiful. Union workers at the Phillips 66 refinery complex make about $115,000 a year, plus a pension and an 8% match on 401k contributions, said Smith.  Together, the Phillips 66 refineries in Los Angeles and the Valero refinery in Solano County produce about 17% of the state’s gas. Without these facilities, Californians could see higher prices at the pump, according to an independent analysis by the federal government. Laurie Wallace, a self-described artist, never wanted to work in oil and gas, but the money was a big draw, she said. For years, she was working as many as three different jobs, saving up money for punk and ska concerts while flipping burgers at In-N-Out, helping customers at Ace Hardware, or working shifts at a local cafe. Her husband at the time learned about a training program for refinery workers. He said he was going to apply and when she said she was interested, he told her she would never get in.  “I took the test and got the better score,” Wallace said. “I don’t do well with people telling me not to do something.” In the nearly 18 years since that exam, she’s worked at the Phillips 66 refinery complex in Los Angeles, handling the heavy machinery that transports California’s oil and gas. Wallace often earns over $100,000, especially with overtime, allowing her to achieve what many might consider the American Dream: a four-bedroom house in the Long Beach suburbs with an affordable mortgage and family vacations every year, including cruises to Mexico and trips to Las Vegas.  She’ll likely see a pay cut in any future job. In a 2023 study by the UC Berkeley Labor Center, UC Irvine professor Virginia Parks helped survey those who had been laid off by the Marathon oil refinery in Contra Costa County in 2020. She found that roughly a quarter were unemployed or no longer looking for work over a year after losing their jobs. Some workers found opportunities at other oil refineries, though they made less money because they lacked seniority or a union. Others found jobs at utility companies or chemical treatment plants, and a few started working in health care or retail.  “I don’t think (refinery workers) need long training programs but they do need some sort of reskilling,” said Parks, who wants the state to provide workers more financial help. She’s especially interested in state grants that give workers income support while they search for a skilled job. “Otherwise they’re just going to find whatever (job) they can.” Her study found that workers who did find a job after getting laid off made about $38 an hour — $12 less than before.  Lots of experience but few ways to prove it Since the layoffs at the Phillips 66 refinery complex will happen slowly over the next few months, Wallace still has a job for now. Her department is responsible for receiving and shipping the oil and gas that arrives at the Port of Los Angeles, work that is so essential that she thinks she’ll be one of the last people laid off, potentially in 2027. Over the years, she’s driven the trains that transport tons of oil and gas, operated cranes to carry pieces of pipelines and climbed on top of the massive fuel storage tanks that line the 110 Freeway. Often, she said she worked six or even seven days in a row. Laurie Wallace at the end of her overnight shift in front of the Phillips 66 refinery in Wilmington, Los Angeles, on Oct. 1, 2025. Photo by Stella Kalinina for CalMatters In April, she was diagnosed with breast cancer and got a modified schedule. Now she works night shifts and only two or three days in a row. After finishing her radiation therapy around 2 p.m., she changes out of her usual attire, a punk T-shirt and jeans, and gets into her work uniform. She then has to get through Los Angeles traffic, bypass the plant’s two layers of security, and travel across the refinery, which takes up multiple city blocks, or about 650 acres. Her shift begins at 4:30 p.m., where she spends 12 hours in a room, alone, under fluorescent lights, actively monitoring 16 different computer screens for changes in pressure or chemistry.  After so many years, staying alert during a night shift is second nature, she said with a laugh. “I’m a little high strung. I have no problem staying awake.”  The stakes are high. If she isn’t paying attention and a machine fails or a tank has the wrong pressure, fuel leaks can occur. In 2014, a hole burst in an underground pipeline near the refinery, pouring 1,200 gallons of oil into a residential street. Although Wallace has used many cranes over the years, she doesn’t have a crane operator’s license. In fact, all of the training that she’s done happens on-site, and her employer isn’t required to track it or give her any credential, such as a license or certificate, that could transfer to another job. After the Marathon refinery in Contra Costa County closed, former workers struggled to substantiate their skills when looking for new jobs, the UC Berkeley Labor survey found.  Drawing directly on the study, and with support from the steelworkers union, longtime labor activist and state Sen. María Elena Durazo, a Los Angeles Democrat, proposed a bill this year that would require employers to provide their workers with proof of any on-the-job training or education. The governor has until Oct. 12 to sign or veto the bill. It’s only “a first step” though, said Parks, a co-author of the study. Long-term, she said refinery workers should have the option to acquire independent certificates or credentials, such as a crane operator license, that prove their skills and don’t rely on an employer at all. “It’s not ideal but it’s temporary”  So far, only a fraction of the oil and gas workers who are eligible for state support have actually received it.  “We just started enrolling members,” said Rosi Romo, who coordinates the grant program on behalf of the steelworkers union. Though the steelworkers union received the money last March, only about 100 people have participated so far, said Romo, most of them in Southern California. She said the program can fund 650 scholarships, offering up to $15,000 in tuition for each worker  In Kern County, where the oil industry is a major employer, the local job centers received over $11 million from the state, which they’ve used to help nearly 370 former oil and gas workers retrain in new careers, including trucking and nursing. The job centers have enough money to serve around 750 people, said Danette Williams, who works in marketing for the centers, known as the Employers’ Training Resource. Unlike the steelworkers union, which is only giving out scholarships, Williams said the Employers’ Training Resource is also offering to reimburse 50% of wages during the first 480 hours of the workers’ new jobs. Romo said she wasn’t aware that was possible under the union’s contract with the state, but if it is, she said she’d try to offer the same benefit. The other organizations who received the grant money did not respond to CalMatters’ questions.  The Phillips 66 refinery in Wilmington, on Sept. 30, 2025. Photo by Stella Kalinina for CalMatters Romo, along with other representatives from the steelworkers union, said the work schedule at the Phillips 66 refinery complex is one reason why workers have yet to use most of the money. As of August, about a quarter of union employees have already left the facility for other opportunities, said Smith, the national bargaining chair for the union. The remaining employees are left working overtime.  Once layoffs begin in the coming months, Romo and Smith said they expect an uptick in the number of workers taking advantage of the scholarship money. Phillips 66 did not respond to multiple requests for comment about its overtime policies or other ways it may be supporting workers’ job transitions.  Cruz said he’s working six days a week now, 12 hours each day. To make progress on his cybersecurity course at UC San Diego, he tries to listen to lectures and audiobooks during his commute or while eating lunch or dinner during his two, 30-minute breaks. After he puts his son to sleep around 9 p.m., he has a few hours to study, though he has to wake up at 5 a.m. to make it to his shift on time. “It’s not ideal but it’s temporary,” he said. Wallace has a slight advantage, since she started taking online classes in 2020 to complete her associate degree. She’s still one class short, but she hasn’t had the time to finish it. Between her radiation therapy and the 12-hour night shifts, she said it’s unlikely she’ll be able to study for at least another year while she works with the skeleton crew that’s closing the refinery. If she had time, she said she would finish her associate degree and use the state training grant to help offset the cost of a bachelor’s degree. But because the state tuition grants expire in 2027, it’s quite possible she won’t be able to use the tuition money at all.

The hidden cost of ultra-processed foods on the environment: ‘The whole industry should pay’

Industrially made foods involve several ingredients and processes to put together, making it difficult to examine their true costIf you look at a package of M&Ms, one of the most popular candies in the US, you’ll see some familiar ingredients: sugar, skimmed milk powder, cocoa butter. But you’ll see many more that aren’t so recognizable: gum arabic, dextrin, carnauba wax, soya lecithin and E100.There are 34 ingredients in M&Ms, and, according to Mars, the company that produces the candy, at least 30 countries – from Ivory Coast to New Zealand – are involved in supplying them. Each has its own supply chain that transforms the raw materials into ingredients – cocoa into cocoa liquor, cane into sugar, petroleum into blue food dye. Continue reading...

If you look at a package of M&Ms, one of the most popular candies in the US, you’ll see some familiar ingredients: sugar, skimmed milk powder, cocoa butter. But you’ll see many more that aren’t so recognizable: gum arabic, dextrin, carnauba wax, soya lecithin and E100.There are 34 ingredients in M&Ms, and, according to Mars, the company that produces the candy, at least 30 countries – from Ivory Coast to New Zealand – are involved in supplying them. Each has its own supply chain that transforms the raw materials into ingredients – cocoa into cocoa liquor, cane into sugar, petroleum into blue food dye.These ingredients then travel across the world to a central processing facility where they are combined and transformed into tiny blue, red, yellow and green chocolate gems.It’s becoming better understood that food systems are a major driver of the climate crisis. Scientists can examine deforestation for agriculture, or the methane emissions from livestock. But the environmental impact of ultra-processed foods – like M&Ms – is less clear and is only now starting to come into focus. One reason they have been so difficult to assess is the very nature of UPFs: these industrially made foods include a huge number of ingredients and processes to put them together, making it nearly impossible to track.But it doesn’t mean it’s not important. As UPFs take over US grocery store shelves and diets– they now comprise 70% of food sold in grocery stores, and more than half of calories consumed – experts say that understanding their environmental toll is critical to build a more climate-friendly food system.What we knowWhile scientists are only starting to examine the environmental impact of UPFs, what’s already known about them is worrisome.“The more processed foods are, the more deleterious they are to human health and the environment,” said Anthony Fardet, a senior researcher at the French National Institute for Agriculture, Food and the Environment. The main reason, he explains, is that the ingredients are so energy intensive. When combined, the toll balloons.Take M&Ms. The first step in creating the candies is farming for cocoa, sugar, dairy and palm.It has been well-documented that agriculture for ingredients like cocoa drives ever increasing rates of deforestation across the globe. Since 1850, agricultural expansion has driven almost 90% of global deforestation, which has been responsible for 30% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Mars corporation has been called out in the past for the cocoa farming practices in their supply chain, and have since created sustainability plans, but these fail to address that large-scale agricultural practices like cocoa farming are, at their core, unsustainable.Then there’s sugar, milk solids and palm fat – also major greenhouse gas emitters.On top of that are the industrially made ingredients like food dyes – perhaps the signature of ultra-processing – which M&Ms contain 13 different types of. Blue M&Ms are colored with dyes E132 and E133; these dyes are mostly made in food dye manufacturing hotspots India and China, via a chemical reaction of aromatic hydrocarbons (which are petroleum products) with diazonium salt, catalyzed by the metals copper and chromium.M&Ms for sale in Orlando, Florida, in 2019. Photograph: Jeff Greenberg/Universal Images Group via Getty ImagesCreating soya lecithin, an additive made from soybean oil that’s used to change the consistency of chocolate, requires steps like degumming in a hot reactor, chemically isolating phospholipids, decolorization using hydrogen peroxide and drying under vacuum pressure. And dextrose, a sweetener, starts off as corn that gets steeped in acid before being milled, separated and dried. From there, it’s broken down into smaller molecules using enzymes and acids, and then recrystallized.Mars declined to comment for this story.While ultra-processed chocolate products are some of the worst offenders, other kinds of UPFs are taxing on the environment as well. Take for instance Doritos, which have 39 ingredients. Corn is the main ingredient, and for every acre grown, 1,000kg of carbon dioxide is emitted to the atmosphere. Like Mars, Pepsico, which makes Doritos, has developed its own sustainability promises, but many of these promises are underpinned by practices that are considered greenwashing, like “regenerative agriculture”. In reality, these sustainability promises undercut the dire need to better understand how UPFs affect our global climate.As a result, some experts have started to calculate the environmental toll of UPFs.CarbonCloud, a Sweden-based software company that calculates the emissions of food products, analyzed carbon disclosures from Mars, and estimated that M&Ms generate at least 13.2kg of carbon equivalents per kilogram of M&Ms produced. Mars produces more than 664m kg of M&Ms in the US each year, which would mean that if CarbonCloud’s calculations are accurate, the candies emit at least 3.8m tons of carbon dioxide – making up 0.1% of annual emissions in the US. (Mars does not report emissions by product, but according to their 2024 emissions report, they emitted 29m tons of carbon dioxide across the company.)But this is only an estimate based on publicly available data; the true cost is probably much higher, experts say. There’s a “black box” when it comes to carbon accounting in the processed food industry, says Patrick Callery, a professor at the University of Vermont who researches how corporations engage with the climate crisis. “There is so much uncertainty as supply chains get complex.”What we don’t knowGetting an exact measure of the environmental toll of UPFs is nearly impossible, given that, definitionally, UPFs consist of many ingredients and a high volume of opaque processes. Ingredients aren’t just mixed together like one would do to make a stew at home. Instead, these ingredients are chemically modified, some parts stripped away, and flavors, dyes or textures added in – and it’s unclear what the cost of these processes are because so many suppliers and components are involved.Another reason is that all UPFs (again, definitionally) are the creations of food companies that have little incentive to disclose their environmental footprint and may not fully understand it to begin with.For instance, Mars itself doesn’t farm cocoa, but instead relies on hundreds of farms that don’t always have accurate carbon accounting measures in place. This means that emissions from big food corporations may be underreported. David Bryngelsson, co-founder of CarbonCloud, said that corporations “don’t have actual data, so they use emissions factors, which are guesses”.Callery says that corporations provide reports on simple things like transportation, which are easier to calculate, and often omit or convolute the agricultural emissions of their product. After all, reporting high emissions goes against the interests of large food corporations, so the complex calculations needed to determine the carbon footprint of large-scale agriculture and multi-step industrial chemical processes used to make UPF ingredients remain un-researched.“The main point of ultra-processed foods is money,” said Fardet, pointing out that they’re designed to be attractive, easy and pleasurable to eat.“Most of the people in the [food industry’s] value chain don’t care about climate change from an ideological point of view, but they do care about money,” said Bryngelsson. He explains that to shift those incentives, the value of foods and ingredients would need to incorporate their impact on our shared climate. But that would require government regulations and financial penalties based on the true environmental cost of UPFs, says Bryngelsson.Why it mattersAt just under $2, the price of M&Ms at the grocery store hardly reflects their true cost on the environment. But to address these problems with ultra-processed foods, more than just a few tweaks to the ingredient list are needed.“Reducing the salt, or sugar of just one product is just greenwashing,” said Fardet. “We need to change the whole picture.” To do that, he suggested consuming more locally sourced, whole foods, which often take much less energy and transit to produce, and therefore have a much smaller carbon footprint.Specialty goods that can’t be sourced locally, like chocolate, should make up a small fraction of our diet and come from traceable and ethical supply chains.That’s not easy for all Americans, given the rising cost of food and the prevalence of food deserts and mediocre food retailers across the US.That’s why it can’t just be up to individuals to make environmentally (and health) conscious choices, experts say. Instead, large food corporations need to be held responsible for the burden they place on society – particularly as it pertains to climate change. Sustainability practices, like the “Cocoa for Generations” plan outlined by Mars, or Pepsico’s “Pep+” initiatives are Band-Aids on broken bones. Large food corporations need to be phased out to make global food systems sustainable.But perhaps more important is to change our understanding of the hidden costs of ultra-processed foods, says Fardet, whether it’s at home, in schools or through the banning the marketing of UPFs to children. Our food systems, Fardet said, “are absolutely not normal. The whole industry should pay the hidden costs.”

What caused the massive El Segundo explosion? Refinery experts have some theories

Although refinery fires are not unheard of, industry experts say the sheer scale of the El Segundo fire last week raises concerns about what went wrong and requires a thorough investigation.

The focus of the investigation into what caused a massive explosion and fire last week at Chevron’s El Segundo plant has turned to a jet fuel processing unit in the southeast corner of the sprawling oil refinery. Chevron officials have said little about what caused the blast but confirmed the Isomax unit, which converts oil into higher-value products such as jet fuel, remains shuttered since the inferno even as other refinery operations continue. “Until we can figure out everything that happened here and make sure it doesn’t happen again, we won’t restart it,” said Ross Allen, a Chevron spokesperson, adding that the refinery continues to produce jet fuel, as well as gasoline and diesel, from other units. Although refinery fires are not unheard of — Chevron’s on-site firefighting team specifically prepares for them — industry experts say the sheer scale of the El Segundo fire last week raises concerns about what went wrong and requires a thorough investigation. The blast turned the night skies across the South Bay bright orange and sent out a roar that reverberated for miles. No one died in the incident, and damage was confined to the refinery’s footprint. Only a few workers have reported minor injuries. “I think Chevron has been extremely, extremely lucky ... [given] the size of the explosion here,” said Najmedin Meshkati, a professor of engineering at USC who has served as an expert for the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board as it has probed other major refinery fires.Meshkati and several other experts interviewed by The Times said it was still hard to know exactly what led to the El Segundo fire that night as few details have been shared by local or Chevron investigators, but there are some likely culprits. Andrew Lipow, president of Houston-based consulting firm Lipow Oil Associates, said that, in his experience, refinery fires can often be traced to equipment failures, especially those that lead to a situation that “allows hot oil and gas to reach the atmosphere.” “It finds an ignition source, and a fire results,” Lipow said. An error from the refinery’s oil sensors could lead to a larger system failure, which can end in major flames, according to Faisal Khan, director of the Texas-based Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety Center, which provides training and education related to chemical safety. Oil sensors — which monitor well conditions and measure pressure, temperature and flow rates — have been used for a long time. But in the last decade, the technology has advanced to the point where there can be an over-reliance on the data, Khan said. That can lead to issues when refineries don’t have a backup mechanism to track the information or a person who can double-check the updates, he said. And once such a fire breaks out, it is particularly hard to fight because of how readily available fuel is within a refinery, said Casey Snow, El Segundo Fire Department division chief. The Fire Department trains to isolate and extinguish these types of fires by “controlling the valves that can restrict the flow” of the fuel, Snow said. It also will use water to try to limit where the active fire could spread. Neither Chevron nor state and local investigators have provided details on how widespread the fire became Thursday and Friday in El Segundo. Even though destruction wasn’t obvious from outside the refinery, Lipow said there was probably still significant damage. With a fire that size, the heat alone can melt equipment, and there could be direct fire damage even if it’s not clear to someone looking at the refinery from the outside, he said. “You can have a fire start at one part of the refinery … and it spreads because there’s just so much intense heat that it causes failures of other pieces of equipment nearby,” Lipow said.But there is often less dramatic damage to infrastructure — even for the scale of the fire — because these refinery fires are mostly burning fuel. “Typically, what you see burning is the fuel inside of the unit and not the structure itself,” said Allen, the Chevron spokesperson. “In many cases, firefighters use water to douse and cool nearby structures to keep the fire from spreading further. This minimizes additional damage to the facilities.”But downplaying the scope of this fire is not helpful, said Meshkati, the USC engineering professor. He said he hopes officials investigating this fire look for a “confluence of three sets of contributing factors,” which he separates into human-related, organizational and technological factors. A human factor can be something like an operator error; organizational factors are problems that stem from corporate decisions, such as not providing enough training or staffing; and technological factors are equipment failures, such as corrosion, he said. In the 2015 explosion at the then-Exxon Mobil Corp.’s Torrance refinery, federal investigators found a combination of organizational and technological issues caused the major blast.“We need to look at each one of those three sets of factors and then to the interaction of those factors,” Meshkati said. Meshkati’s main concern is that the investigation into this fire may not end up being as thorough and stringent as it could be, especially if the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board isn’t fully funded or staffed, as is now the case — a situation that has worried some locals and environmental groups. “We have not heard or seen from the Chemical Safety Board, which is the premier accident investigator for refineries in the United States,” Meshkati said. “This is, I think, a travesty.”An inquiry from The Times to the federal chemical board received an automatic out-of-office reply, citing the federal government shutdown. The Trump administration has also proposed budget cuts that would defund the board. But there are already several other investigations into the fire. Chevron officials said the company is working on its own probe, and the South Coast Air Quality Management District will look into potential violations of air quality rules and permit conditions. The California Department of Industrial Relations, which includes the Cal/OSHA Process Safety Management Unit, has also opened an investigation into the refinery fire, conducting thorough investigations to determine the cause of incidents and whether any state safety standards were violated. It wasn’t immediately clear when those findings would be ready, but Chevron is required to submit a report to the air quality district within 30 days analyzing potential causes and equipment breakdowns. Allen, the Chevron spokesperson, did not respond to a questions about the federal chemical board’s role or a possible timeline for Chevron’s findings from its investigation. Local authorities reported no injuries after the explosion. But as of Tuesday, four workers have claimed they were harmed in the incident, according to a lawsuit filed in Texas. One of their attorneys, Victoria Alford, said they were injured while they fled the massive explosion, calling the plant workers’ physical injuries “orthopedic in nature,” and said they were also suffering from anxiety.

Why Concord?

The geological origins of the American Revolution

Photographs by Amani WillettEditor’s Note: This article is part of “The Unfinished Revolution,” a project exploring 250 years of the American experiment. Concord, Massachusetts, 18 miles northwest of Boston, was the starting point for the War of Independence. On April 19, 1775, militia and minutemen from Concord and neighboring towns clashed with British regulars at the Old North Bridge and forced a bloody retreat by the King’s men back to safety in Boston. Some 4,000 provincials from 30 towns answered the call to arms. Concord claimed precedence as the site of THE FIRST FORCIBLE RESISTANCE TO BRITISH AGGRESSION, the words inscribed on the town’s 1836 monument to the battle (to the enduring resentment of nearby Lexington, which actually suffered the first American deaths that day). Concord’s boast took hold thanks to Ralph Waldo Emerson, who in 1837 portrayed the brief skirmish at the bridge as “the shot heard round the world.” That moment has been a key to local identity ever since.Concord is widely known for another aspect of its history: It is intimately associated with the Transcendentalist movement in the quarter century before the Civil War. That distinction, too, it owes to Emerson. Born and raised in Boston, the most prominent public intellectual of Civil War America was the scion of six generations of New England divines, going back to Concord’s founding minister. In 1835, at age 32, Emerson returned to “the quiet fields of my fathers,” and from that ancestral base forged his career as a lecturer in Boston and beyond. He quickly became known as an eloquent voice for a new philosophy—calling on Americans to shed outmoded ways of thinking rooted in the colonial and British past and to put their trust in nature and in themselves. Partaking, as he saw it, of a divinity running through all Creation, Americans had an unprecedented opportunity to build an original culture on the principles of democracy, equality, and individual freedom. Emerson’s project was to unleash this infinite force.In Concord, Emerson attracted a coterie of sympathetic souls who shared his vision, including Henry David Thoreau, who, as the author of Walden and “Civil Disobedience,” would ultimately surpass Emerson in renown. As the town gained literary stature, Concord became a byword for the philosophical movement it hosted. Henry Adams called Transcendentalism “the Concord Church.” Emerson projected his influence by means of books and lectures. He was among the founders of The Atlantic, calling in its pages for the abolition of slavery (and, a few months later, mourning the death of Thoreau). Concord itself emerged, in the words of Henry James, as “the biggest little place in America.”Why Concord? How did a small town of some 2,200 inhabitants in 1860 become a cradle of not one but two revolutions? The best-known explanations distort the town’s history while inflating its self-regard. One view, popularized by Van Wyck Brooks’s Pulitzer Prize–winning The Flowering of New England (1936), emphasizes Concord’s bucolic beauty, agricultural economy, and limited industrial development. It was a place fit for poets and philosophers, where nature and man came together in rare harmony. A second view, advanced by the Yale historian Ralph Henry Gabriel in 1940, holds that the Transcendentalists were the intellectual heirs of the minutemen. By challenging the materialism of business and politics and by insisting on the ideals of a democratic faith, Gabriel argued, Emerson and Thoreau were “carrying on the fight which had been started by farmers at the bridge.”It’s no wonder that locals and tourists alike continue to indulge such explanations. An attractive civic identity can brand a town and bring in business; ironically, Concord’s reputation as a place of principle, carrying the torch of democratic ideals, serves just this purpose. Still, as history, the public image of the Transcendentalists as heirs of the minutemen has little foundation. The minutemen had fought for collective liberty, the communal right to govern themselves and uphold a way of life going back to the Puritan founders. Transcendentalists, by contrast, stressed individual rights in a break with tradition. Forsake inherited institutions and involuntary associations, Emerson urged. “Trust thyself” was his strategy for changing times. A reconstruction of Concord’s Old North Bridge, where militia and minutemen forced British soldiers to retreat on April 19, 1775. (Amani Willett for The Atlantic) The town of Concord was not some sheltered enclave, slumbering through the revolutions of the age. In the Transcendentalist era, the community was economically dynamic, religiously diverse, racially heterogeneous, class-stratified, politically divided, and receptive to social and political reform. It stood in the mainstream of antebellum America. It offered no asylum from change.It’s easy to overstate the uniqueness of Concord in politics as well as culture. Why was the town at the forefront of the Revolution? Not because it was more militant than most. In the opposition to British taxes and “tyranny,” it took its time, reluctant to unsettle authority and break with the Crown. Then again, so did most towns in Massachusetts, until Britain revoked the colony’s provincial charter and assailed local self-government. Moderation made Concord a safe place to store military supplies; its leaders were unlikely to act rashly and precipitate a war. So did its distance from Boston and its pivotal place on the Massachusetts road network. The town was a market center, a seat of courts, and a staging ground for military expeditions—such as the march to Boston in 1689 to overthrow the authoritarian royal governor, Edmund Andros. But other towns, such as Weston and Worcester, could have performed a similar service in 1775.As for Concord’s status as the center of Transcendentalism, the claim is inflated. The movement drew support across the Boston area. Transcendentalists preached from Unitarian pulpits not only in Boston but also in nearby towns such as Watertown, Arlington, and Lexington. So Concord was not alone: Its citizens experienced the same forces unsettling life all over Massachusetts. Its writers just happened to address that social transformation with a vision of nature and the self so compelling that Concord became the symbolic rather than literal center of Transcendentalism.[From the December 2021 issue: Emerson didn’t practice the self-reliance he preached]In one key respect, though, Concord truly was unique. In 1635, when the Massachusetts General Court authorized the founding of the town, it possessed a natural setting with distinct advantages replicated nowhere else in New England. Over millennia, the forces of geology had fashioned a physical landscape that the Native inhabitants had improved to sustain their way of life, and had unwittingly made ready for appropriation by the newcomers from across the sea. These resources drew pioneers into the interior, well beyond the seaboard, for the first time, and enabled the creation of new social and intellectual landscapes. Nature blessed Concord from the start. Emerson rightly invoked the universal currents of being, whose natural laws, as he saw it, were the same in his era as at the beginning of time.The Concord River runs north, rather than southeasterly down the regional slope toward the sea. When the edge of the great ice sheet began to retreat from the area about 17,000 years ago, the Concord River was dammed up by the ice to create a ribbon-shaped glacial lake with a muddy bottom. Eventually the lake drained away, allowing the Concord River to cut an inner valley beneath a moist and fertile lowland.This process set the stage for the creation of what the Indigenous Massachusett, Nipmuc, and Pawtucket peoples called Musketaquid, meaning “grass-ground river,” a marsh about 20 miles long and so flat and so uninterrupted that Thoreau skated the entire round-trip distance one freezing day—January 31, 1855. The languid stream passed through broad meadows to create a northern version of the Everglades (without the alligators). Nathaniel Hawthorne lived along the bank for three weeks before he discerned which way the river flowed.This riparian ecology attracted colonists: Concord became the first English town in North America above tidewater, beyond the sight and scent of the sea. Here the lush growth of freshwater hay would undergird a system of English husbandry dependent on livestock. Here migrating shad, herring, and salmon thrived in the aquatic richness, furnishing plentiful protein sources, vitamins, and minerals. Here the firm, muddy banks made an ideal habitat for the freshwater mussels on which other animals depended: muskrat, otters, turtles, human beings. On July 3, 1852, Thoreau estimated that more than 16,335 freshwater clams lay along 330 feet of the riverbank. Migrating waterfowl followed the meadows. Songbirds nested along their edges.Transplanting Old World methods, the founders of Concord harvested natural hay in its Great Meadow, which was annually enriched with nutrients by flooding. Thoreau gazed at the scene and imagined a river as fertile and ancient as the Nile. “It will be Grass-ground River as long as grass grows and water runs here,” he predicted in the opening lines of his first book, A Week on the Concord and Merrimack Rivers (1849). Above the meadow stood the Great Field, an unusually flat, loamy, well-drained terrace that the Native people had long cleared for cultivation, using fish for fertilizer. For the colonists, this was a place to grow cereal grains, including the novel crop of Indian corn, fertilized by manure from cattle fed on hay from the Great Meadow. Above the Great Field was a broad expanse of fairly level habitable land covered by old-growth forest. This extensive lowland gave inhabitants room to spread out on mostly stone-free soils, unlike so much of New England, and create productive farms.Concord lies at the midpoint of Musketaquid, a place where the Assabet River, a typical midsize New England stream, enters from the west to bisect the ribbon of meadowland, creating the Sudbury River to the south and the Concord River to the north. It’s no accident that Concord village was settled in this strategic spot, where three rivers touch—the axis mundi of a most unusual valley.Eighteen miles. That’s the distance from Boston Harbor to Concord village. A regiment of British soldiers walked it on their ill-fated expedition. In October 1833, Thoreau hiked the route to Concord from his Harvard dormitory in Cambridge, blistering his feet in the process. Eighteen miles was far enough from the capital to serve as the primary depot of provincial military stores; it made for a long march in the dead of night through hostile countryside, as the British regulars learned to their sorrow. In times of peace, Concord could take advantage of its favorable location—far enough from more urban coastal settlements to cultivate a rural identity centered on agriculture, but close enough to enjoy proximity to educational institutions, literary culture, markets and wharves, and the statehouse. Concord became a right-size county seat, its central village of shops, taverns, courthouse, and meetinghouse surrounded by farms no more than a few minutes’ walk in any direction.The physical separation between Boston and Concord involves more than the linear distance between two points. The population centers occupy different watersheds—the Charles River watershed to the east and the Concord River watershed to the west. In fact, they lie on different bedrock terranes that originated in different places in different eras. The terrane boundary coincides with the Bloody Bluff fault, named for a rocky notch where British troops were trapped by ferocious provincial fire. Here the land leans toward the security of the sea. To the west, it leans toward a hinterland where pioneering residents looked to one another for community support. Without the Lexington Road and its regular stagecoach traffic, 18th-century Concord would have remained an agricultural village. Instead, it became a prominent node in an expanding trade network. The significance of the watershed divide between country and city diminished only after the Fitchburg Railroad reached Concord in 1844. Top: The woods surrounding Walden Pond. Bottom: Concord’s Great Meadow. The construction of a railroad in 1844 made the town a day-trip destination for middle-class urbanites. (Amani Willett for The Atlantic) Before steam power and the internal combustion engine, the main source of mechanical power in Concord derived from flowing water. Harnessing hydropower required the construction of a dam, behind which a reservoir filled up with streamflow. For much of its history, Concord village was defined by a man-made pond, the filling of which was the counterpart to our putting fuel in a tank or recharging a battery.At Concord’s beginning, in the 1630s, its settlers clustered in a central village to take advantage of the waterpower of Mill Brook. A dam was built on the stream in a constricted space—the site of an abandoned fishing weir put in place by Indigenous occupants to capture the seasonal runs of shad and salmon coming upstream to spawn. The mill dam was sufficient for two centuries to power a diversity of small-scale manufacturing enterprises, including grist- and sawmills and blacksmith shops, but it was not enough to expand and compete even with the small factory cities west of Musketaquid, such as nearby Maynard and Stow, not to mention the industrial behemoths Lowell and Lawrence to the north. The enduring legacy of Mill Brook was to foster the growth of a central village in a colony where dispersed residences became the norm. Together with the Great Field and Great Meadow, the nucleated village of Concord, where people settled thickly under the watchful eyes of neighbors, manifested the Puritan ideal of community on the ground.Above the marshy meadows of Musketaquid, but below the fairly level wooded land over which Concord center sprawled, is a discrete alluvial floodplain dominated by river-transported silt and sand. And where this alluvium is absent, the meadows have low, natural-edging levees, high and dry enough to provide a habitat for a beautiful “gallery” forest fringing all three rivers on both sides. This extensive strip of trees constituted a buffer zone between the deforested open landscape of farms, fields, and pastures and the never-forested wetland of meadows and streams. As Thoreau floated down the rivers and walked along their banks, he delighted in this woodland composed not of tall pine and hickory, but of willow, alder, birch, red maple, and other species. Ralph Waldo Emerson’s home in Concord, and the nature reflected in its window (Amani Willett for The Atlantic) While drafting Nature from his second-floor study in the Old Manse—the house near Old North Bridge later occupied by Nathaniel and Sophia Hawthorne—Emerson would look out over a field and stone walls toward a gallery forest on both sides of the Concord River. Thoreau’s views, when he traveled the river by boat, skates, or snowshoes, were flanked by woods on both sides. Owing to its hydrology, Concord’s gallery forest persisted, even during the peak deforestation of the mid-19th century, when forest cover was reduced to about 10 percent of the town’s land area.Along the southern edge of Concord lies an elevated tract of droughty, infertile, and often bumpy land that remained unfit for development well into the 20th century. The uphill climb to that tract, known as Brister’s Hill for a once-enslaved Black man who made his residence there as a free man, is the north-facing escarpment of a forested plateau known as Walden Woods. Composed mainly of river gravel and sand, this upland is an ancient glacial delta that built outward over buried blocks of stagnant glacial ice. When those blocks later melted underground, the result was a chain of sinkhole lakes and ponds called kettles. The largest and purest of these is Walden Pond, the deepest lake in Massachusetts.For the Transcendentalists of the 1830s and ’40s, Walden Pond served as a source of inspiration within an easy walk of Emerson’s parlor. When Thoreau lived there in the mid-1840s, the lake became the imagined interlocutor for his philosophical musings—“Walden, is it you?”—and a powerful symbol of the unity of nature. Though the still-beautiful Concord River had been greatly changed by this time, Walden Pond, “earth’s eye,” became Thoreau’s exemplar of purity and eternity in a landscape denuded of trees and drained of its wetlands.But the commercialism and superficial mass culture that dismayed Emerson and outraged Thoreau intruded even here. An entrepreneurial agent for the Fitchburg Railroad built an amusement park at “Lake Walden.” In the Gilded Age, it became a day trip by train for middle-class urbanites and poor children from the Boston tenements. Eventually, the Emerson family acquired the bulk of the woodland surrounding the pond and donated it for public use.Concord is not unique in having one or more beautiful lakes within its borders. What makes it singular is that Thoreau’s book of the place made the place of the book world-famous. Walden became the foundational text for the aesthetic strand of the American environmental movement. Its emphasis on nature’s beauty and the spiritual inspiration that could be enjoyed at a humble kettle pond presented a pointed contrast to the utilitarian strand of the movement pioneered by George Perkins Marsh, the author of Man and Nature (1864), who sought to conserve nature for economic purposes. Of course, unwittingly, Thoreau’s classic also enhanced the tourist trade.In the 20th century, Concord, a town whose motto at times could be “Resisting change since 1775,” became a progressive leader on environmental and sustainability issues. Its otherwise inauspicious lake is now a global symbol and a destination for admirers of Thoreau. The more than 160,000 international pilgrims who come to visit every year, together with the attentions of nearby residents, threaten to love the pond and woods to death. It has been an ongoing political struggle to preserve Walden as it was in Thoreau’s day—an admittedly impossible task. Attempting to live up to that responsibility earned Concord acclaim across the world, notwithstanding the town’s decision in 1958 to site the town landfill within 800 feet of the lake—a choice considered temporary at the time and that local activists are now seeking to mitigate.Not everyone has appreciated the distinct landscape created by Concord’s geological history. In 1844, Margaret Fuller accused Emerson of settling for a placid suburban existence. A noble soul like his, she believed, required a sublime setting—dazzling waterfalls and mountain peaks—rather than the “poor cold low life” of Concord. Defensively, the country gentleman counted his blessings. If the town lacked “the thickets of the forest and the fatigues of mountains,” it was easy to reach and traverse. It was close enough to the city to attract big-name lecturers and performers, and yet distant enough to possess “the grand features of nature.” More than 160,000 pilgrims from around the globe visit Walden Pond each year. (Amani Willett for The Atlantic) Thoreau put the matter succinctly: Wildness lies all around us, and in it is “the preservation of the world.” Could not every town, he proposed, create a park “or rather a primitive forest of five hundred or a thousand acres, where a stick should never be cut for fuel,” but be “a common possession forever, for instruction and recreation”? His neighbors took the suggestion to heart. In the 160-plus years since his death, they preserved a sizable portion of the town’s farms, forests, and wetlands from economic development. Of Concord’s nearly 16,200 acres of land, roughly 6,120 acres, or 38 percent, are now “permanently protected open space,” according to a 2015 town plan. Thoreau’s own close studies of natural phenomena, including his phenological notes on seasonal events—when plants leaf, for example, and when birds migrate, and when the river ice breaks up—are now indispensable records with which scientists assess the advance and toll of climate change today.Yet the challenge to care for that environmental heritage is ongoing. Concord is not frozen in time. It is an active, changing community facing unrelenting pressures for economic development—for instance, controversial proposals for a cell tower in Walden Woods and for expanded private-jet flights from nearby Hanscom Field. Thoreau witnessed the same root conflict. With geology emerging as a science in his time, he intuited that nature was as subject to change as human society; it was no fixed backdrop.For all our extraordinary human achievements, we remain earthlings. Rocks and minerals give rise to ecosystems, upon which human cultures are dependent. That’s the direction of human history in deep time: up from the ground. In our unprecedented modern geological epoch, the aptly named Anthropocene, human beings have become the dominant geological agents, thanks to the power of fossil fuels—also up from the ground, but exhaustible and not enduring. That change has its origins in the Industrial Revolution, against whose excesses the Transcendentalists warned.On April 19, 2025, some 70,000 people converged on Concord to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the battle that started it all. Marching in the parade were representatives from some of the 97 communities in the United States that take their name from the birthplace of the Revolution. The celebrations proved to be patriotic as well as inclusive, paying tribute to the heritage of liberty and self-government that is the legacy of the New England town. They were also surprisingly cheerful for our polarized time, though a good many participants did carry signs inspired by the minutemen: NO KING THEN, NO KING NOW.Every place is unique because every place is the contingent outcome of its own inescapable cascade of events—from rock to ecosystem to culture. Concord was lucky in its location, inheriting advantages from natural landscape and history on which its inhabitants could build a sense of place and community. It was a fierce determination to defend that community, with its tradition of town-meeting government, that inspired the resistance to the British regulars. The location of the Old North Bridge at a bedrock-anchored narrows between two large meadows made a logical place for the shot heard round the world. The Battle Road that led to it was flanked by stone walls and trees lining the edges of fields, at times narrowing to pass over streams or curving sharply to follow landforms. The character of the Concord fight owed much to geology. It helps explain the rout of the redcoats—and the ensuing popular confidence in the possibility of a military victory that lay eight years ahead.This article appears in the November 2025 print edition with the headline “Why Concord?”

Trump’s coal bailout won’t solve the data center power crunch

The Trump administration is spending more than half a billion dollars to help prop up the dying coal industry. It’s also weakening pollution regulations and opening up more federal land to coal mining. All of this isn’t likely to save the industry—and also isn’t likely to do much to meet the surging demand for power from data centers for AI. Coal power is expensive, and that isn’t going to change Aging coal power plants are now so expensive to run that hundreds have retired over the last decade, including around 100 that retired or made plans to retire during Trump’s first term. Offering relatively small subsidies isn’t likely to change the long-term trend. “I don’t think it’s going to change the underlying economics,” says Michelle Solomon, a manager in the electricity program at the think tank Energy Innovation. “The reasons why coal has increased in cost will continue to be fundamentally true.” The cost of coal power grew 28% between 2021 and 2024, or more than double the rate of inflation. One reason is age: the average coal power plant in the U.S. is around 50 years old, and they aren’t designed to last much longer. Because renewable energy is cheaper, and regulation is likely to ramp up in the future, investors don’t see building new coal power plants as viable. But trying to keep outdated plants running also doesn’t make economic sense. The new funding can’t go very far. The Department of Energy plans to spend $625 million on coal projects, including $350 million to recommission and retrofit old plants. Another $25 million is set aside for retrofitting coal plants with natural gas co-firing systems. But that type of project can cost hundreds of millions or even a billion dollars for a single plant. (The $25 million, presumably, might only cover planning or a small pilot.) Other retrofits might only extend the life of a power plant by a few years. Because the plants will continue to be expensive to run, some power plant owners may not think the subsidies are worth it. Utilities want to move on If coal power plants keep running past their retirement age, even with some retrofits, costs keep going up for consumers. “That’s something that you really see in states that continue to rely on coal for a big part of their electricity mix,” says Solomon. “Like Kentucky and West Virginia, who have had their cost for power increase at some of the fastest rates in the country.” In Michigan, earlier this year, the DOE forced a coal power plant to stay open after it was scheduled to retire. The DOE cited an “emergency,” though neither the grid operator nor the utility said that there were power supply issues; the planned retirement of the plant included building new sources of energy to replace it. The utility reported to the SEC that within the first 38 days, alone, it spent $29 million to keep the plant running. (The emergency order is still in place, and being challenged by multiple lawsuits.) The extra expense shows up on consumers’ bills. One report estimates that by 2028, efforts to keep large power plants from retiring could cost consumers more than $3 billion a year. Utilities have long acknowledged the reality that there are less expensive energy sources. In the first Trump administration, in 2018, utilities resisted Trump’s attempts to use emergency powers to keep uneconomic coal plants open. When utilities plan to retire a power plant, there’s a long planning process. Plants begin making decision to defer maintenance that would otherwise be necessary. And many won’t want to reverse their decisions. It’s true that demand for power from data centers has led some utilities to keep coal plants online longer—and electric bills are already soaring in areas near large data centers. But Trump’s incentives may not make much difference for others. The last coal plant in New England just shut down years early, despite the current outlook for data centers. “Utilities do have to take a long-term view,” says Lori Bird, director of the U.S. energy program at the nonprofit World Resources Institute. “They’re doing multi-year planning. So they consider the durability and economic viability of these assets over the longer term. They have not been economic, and they’re also the highest-emitting greenhouse gas facilities.” Even if the Trump administration has rolled back environmental regulations, she says, future administrations could reverse that; continuing to use coal is a risky proposition. In most states, utilities also have to comply with renewable power goals. There are better solutions It’s true that the U.S. needs more power generation, quickly. It’s not clear exactly how much new electricity will be needed—some of that will depend on how much AI is a bubble and how much tech companies can shrink their power usage at data centers. But the nonprofit Rewiring America calculated that data centers that are under construction or in planning could add 93 gigawatts of electricity demand to the U.S. grid by the end of the decade. The nonprofit argues that some or even all of that new capacity could be covered by rooftop solar and batteries at homes. Cheap utility-scale renewable power plants could obviously also help, though the Trump administration is actively fighting them. Battery storage can help provide 24/7 energy. One analysis of a retiring coal plant in Maryland found that it would be less expensive to replace it with batteries and transmission upgrades than to keep it running. Temporarily saving a handful of coal power plants won’t cover the new power needs. It would add to air pollution, water pollution, and climate pollution. And it would significantly push up power bills when consumers are already struggling. Real support for an “energy emergency” would include faster permitting and other work to accelerate building affordable renewable energy, experts say. “Making sure that resources can compete openly is really important,” says Solomon. “It’s important to not only meet the demand from AI, but make sure that it doesn’t raise costs for electricity consumers.”

The Trump administration is spending more than half a billion dollars to help prop up the dying coal industry. It’s also weakening pollution regulations and opening up more federal land to coal mining. All of this isn’t likely to save the industry—and also isn’t likely to do much to meet the surging demand for power from data centers for AI. Coal power is expensive, and that isn’t going to change Aging coal power plants are now so expensive to run that hundreds have retired over the last decade, including around 100 that retired or made plans to retire during Trump’s first term. Offering relatively small subsidies isn’t likely to change the long-term trend. “I don’t think it’s going to change the underlying economics,” says Michelle Solomon, a manager in the electricity program at the think tank Energy Innovation. “The reasons why coal has increased in cost will continue to be fundamentally true.” The cost of coal power grew 28% between 2021 and 2024, or more than double the rate of inflation. One reason is age: the average coal power plant in the U.S. is around 50 years old, and they aren’t designed to last much longer. Because renewable energy is cheaper, and regulation is likely to ramp up in the future, investors don’t see building new coal power plants as viable. But trying to keep outdated plants running also doesn’t make economic sense. The new funding can’t go very far. The Department of Energy plans to spend $625 million on coal projects, including $350 million to recommission and retrofit old plants. Another $25 million is set aside for retrofitting coal plants with natural gas co-firing systems. But that type of project can cost hundreds of millions or even a billion dollars for a single plant. (The $25 million, presumably, might only cover planning or a small pilot.) Other retrofits might only extend the life of a power plant by a few years. Because the plants will continue to be expensive to run, some power plant owners may not think the subsidies are worth it. Utilities want to move on If coal power plants keep running past their retirement age, even with some retrofits, costs keep going up for consumers. “That’s something that you really see in states that continue to rely on coal for a big part of their electricity mix,” says Solomon. “Like Kentucky and West Virginia, who have had their cost for power increase at some of the fastest rates in the country.” In Michigan, earlier this year, the DOE forced a coal power plant to stay open after it was scheduled to retire. The DOE cited an “emergency,” though neither the grid operator nor the utility said that there were power supply issues; the planned retirement of the plant included building new sources of energy to replace it. The utility reported to the SEC that within the first 38 days, alone, it spent $29 million to keep the plant running. (The emergency order is still in place, and being challenged by multiple lawsuits.) The extra expense shows up on consumers’ bills. One report estimates that by 2028, efforts to keep large power plants from retiring could cost consumers more than $3 billion a year. Utilities have long acknowledged the reality that there are less expensive energy sources. In the first Trump administration, in 2018, utilities resisted Trump’s attempts to use emergency powers to keep uneconomic coal plants open. When utilities plan to retire a power plant, there’s a long planning process. Plants begin making decision to defer maintenance that would otherwise be necessary. And many won’t want to reverse their decisions. It’s true that demand for power from data centers has led some utilities to keep coal plants online longer—and electric bills are already soaring in areas near large data centers. But Trump’s incentives may not make much difference for others. The last coal plant in New England just shut down years early, despite the current outlook for data centers. “Utilities do have to take a long-term view,” says Lori Bird, director of the U.S. energy program at the nonprofit World Resources Institute. “They’re doing multi-year planning. So they consider the durability and economic viability of these assets over the longer term. They have not been economic, and they’re also the highest-emitting greenhouse gas facilities.” Even if the Trump administration has rolled back environmental regulations, she says, future administrations could reverse that; continuing to use coal is a risky proposition. In most states, utilities also have to comply with renewable power goals. There are better solutions It’s true that the U.S. needs more power generation, quickly. It’s not clear exactly how much new electricity will be needed—some of that will depend on how much AI is a bubble and how much tech companies can shrink their power usage at data centers. But the nonprofit Rewiring America calculated that data centers that are under construction or in planning could add 93 gigawatts of electricity demand to the U.S. grid by the end of the decade. The nonprofit argues that some or even all of that new capacity could be covered by rooftop solar and batteries at homes. Cheap utility-scale renewable power plants could obviously also help, though the Trump administration is actively fighting them. Battery storage can help provide 24/7 energy. One analysis of a retiring coal plant in Maryland found that it would be less expensive to replace it with batteries and transmission upgrades than to keep it running. Temporarily saving a handful of coal power plants won’t cover the new power needs. It would add to air pollution, water pollution, and climate pollution. And it would significantly push up power bills when consumers are already struggling. Real support for an “energy emergency” would include faster permitting and other work to accelerate building affordable renewable energy, experts say. “Making sure that resources can compete openly is really important,” says Solomon. “It’s important to not only meet the demand from AI, but make sure that it doesn’t raise costs for electricity consumers.”

Democratic Food and Ag Candidates Enter the Political Fray

Some of the candidates are leveraging their direct experiences of Trump administration policies and are hoping to shake up the traditional Democratic platform. “The party hasn’t needed to twist arms that hard to get people with non-traditional backgrounds to run,” David Wasserman, senior editor and elections analyst for The Cook Political Report, told Civil Eats. […] The post Democratic Food and Ag Candidates Enter the Political Fray appeared first on Civil Eats.

Even though general elections are over a year away, non-traditional, first-time candidates are throwing their hat in the ring for U.S. House and Senate races. Several of them come from food, farming, or federal government backgrounds and were moved to run for public office because of federal funding freezes at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), tariffs, or cuts to food assistance in the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB). As Democrats look to reassert control in Congress, analysts say these voices could be vital in reaching the rural voters that have previously steered clear of the party. Some of the candidates are leveraging their direct experiences of Trump administration policies and are hoping to shake up the traditional Democratic platform. “The party hasn’t needed to twist arms that hard to get people with non-traditional backgrounds to run,” David Wasserman, senior editor and elections analyst for The Cook Political Report, told Civil Eats. “Democrats know they need to reconnect with rural voters.” Former Vice President Kamala Harris attempted to do this in her 2024 bid by pulling in Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and by making a bigger push in rural communities. But in the end she failed to pull in those voters. In the 2024 election, 69 percent of rural voters backed Trump while 29 percent voted for Harris, according to the Pew Research Center. This widened the rural voter divide from 2020, when Trump won 65 percent of the rural vote while former President Joe Biden earned 34 percent. Despite their standing as Republican strongholds, rural areas may now represent new opportunity for Democratic candidates as Trump administration policies continue to hit the heartland. Here are some of the new rural Democrats whose campaigns highlight how food and agriculture could play a part in the November 2026 midterms. Although Midwest farmers were expecting strong yields from this year’s soybean crops after a favorable growing season, tariffs have shifted global markets, toward cheaper crops in Brazil. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images) Jamie Ager, House (North Carolina) Jamie Ager is a fourth-generation farmer in Western North Carolina, where over the last 25 years he’s raised grass-fed beef and pasture-raised pork. Now that his children are grown, he’s stepping into the political arena. “I think that food and agriculture and rural America has been left behind in a lot of ways,” Ager said during a recent New York City Climate Week event. Ager’s campaign for the 11th Congressional District focuses on breaking traditional partisan lines. While he’s running as a Democrat, he argues the party needs to get back to its roots and represent working people. His campaign also highlights the cost of health care, housing affordability, and the recovery from Hurricane Helene, which last year devastated farm country in the state. Western North Carolina suffered major losses from the storm, and many small towns there are still waiting for hundreds of thousands of dollars of relief promised by the federal government. “We’ve got enough stacked against us right now with all the economic challenges of the region, to then not get any support from the federal government that was promised,” Ager said. “That money has been spent knowing that promise was coming.” While agriculture in his region is less steeped in commodity row crops, Ager said he’s empathetic toward corn and soybean farmers dealing with the impact of tariffs. Tariffs make it hard for them to make a living, he said, and are pushing rural voters to seek better leadership. “We’ve got enough stacked against us right now with all the economic challenges of the region.” In addition to tackling these issues in Congress, Ager said he sees space for bipartisan work on regenerative agriculture and conservation. “Our quest over the last 80 years towards cheap food has resulted in the efficient system we have now,” Ager said. “But the efficient system we have now doesn’t mean it actually nourishes the people.” Republicans like Sen. Roger Marshall (Kansas) and Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have also started to embrace this idea, highlighting soil health and regenerative agriculture. This is an encouraging sign, Ager said, and a space where he could contribute in Congress as a regenerative farmer himself. “Having worked with my hands and having to solve problems with my hands is almost the best experience you can bring to Congress,” Ager said. “Because you know what it’s like to do that and to make a living doing that, and there’s some familiarity with what everyday people go through.” Megan O’Rourke, House (New Jersey) Megan O’Rourke began working at the USDA in 2010 and became the first climate-change advisor for the Foreign Agricultural Service. Over the course of her tenure in the federal government, she also worked with the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) as a climate-change advisor. She eventually returned to the USDA in 2020 to work with the National Institute of Food and Agriculture. In July, she left her agency role as the national science liaison for climate change because of executive orders and funding freezes by the Trump administration. As someone who worked under the first Trump administration and the Biden administration, she said this term felt different. O’Rourke said she saw red flags in Trump’s first wave of executive orders, making it clear from the beginning that climate change and science would not be taken seriously. But the final straw was the day that all of her work, along with several other references to climate change, was scrubbed from federal government websites, she said. This included the congressionally mandated National Climate Assessment, which she contributed to. Under then-President Joe Biden, climate researchers worked on the Fifth National Climate Assessment, which was scrubbed from government websites under the second Trump administration. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images) O’Rourke is running in a crowded Democratic field in one of the state’s most competitive midterm districts, the 7th Congressional. Overall affordability (and especially high housing and electricity costs), political division, and the government’s unpredictability are key themes in O’Rourke’s campaign. O’Rourke grew up in a food-insecure home, and she said the recent cuts to food assistance and health programs in the OBBB feel personal. “I want to be somebody in Congress who actually knows and understands these programs, instead of silver-spoon politicians,” O’Rourke told Civil Eats. In conversations with farmers and others in her community, O’Rourke said she’s also heard a lot of concern about the uncertainty surrounding the farm bill and USDA support systems. In the agricultural research space, she said nearly every person she’s connected with during her campaign has had grants rescinded. This means labs or research offices are having to lay off staff or can’t afford to hire students, she said. “The farm community, just like a lot of people, are sick of the uncertainty and divisiveness and want people in Congress to get to work.” With the USDA’s upcoming reorganization, farmers are unsure whether they’ll have adequate access to experts to help them navigate programs and grant applications. “The farm community, just like a lot of people, are sick of the uncertainty and divisiveness and want people in Congress to get to work and especially pass a farm bill,” O’Rourke said. Her campaign also focuses on environmental safety issues, including water contamination and Superfund sites in her district. O’Rourke said the administration has cut back on science that is fundamental to addressing these problems, which has a direct impact on her community. “That touches on . . . . what people care about in their day-to-day life: your house, your food, your family, and your health.” Graham Platner, Senate (Maine) Graham Platner, an oyster farmer and military veteran, is one of several candidates vying for the Democratic nomination to face off against Republican Sen. Susan Collins. Platner has raised $3.2 million in the first quarter since announcing his campaign, according to Axios. He also has the backing of progressives like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) and is appealing to working-class Mainers, since he is one himself. “I’m a working person in Maine who [was] living, until recently, a very very normal life that is impacted by the outcomes of policy,” Platner said recently on MSNBC. “I can see that in my community, I can see it in my own life.” While Platner is running as a Democrat, he’s pushed back against the “liberal” label. Even while advocating for progressive policies like universal health care, instead of focusing on party affiliation, he’s emphasized representing everyday people. “I’m a working person in Maine who [was] living, until recently, a very very normal life that is impacted by the outcomes of policy.” “I find it highly amusing that having a problem with hospitals closing in Maine and trying to figure out how to use the vast wealth of this nation to keep that from happening, the fact that somebody thinks that’s some kind of lefty, progressive ideal seems absurd to me,” Platner said. “That mostly seems like I’m just trying to give a damn about my community.” Platner faces a sea of other Democratic primary challengers, including Dan Kleban, founder of the Maine Beer Company. Both face an uphill battle if Maine Gov. Janet Mills also announces her bid. Salaam Bhatti, House (Virginia) Salaam Bhatti’s background in food policy dates to his childhood, when his family benefitted from the Special Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC). The experience pushed him to become a public-interest lawyer, which he later did at the Virginia Poverty Law Center. He also worked as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) director for the Food Research and Action Center. The passage of the OBBB, combined with rising healthcare, housing, and grocery costs were key drivers behind Bhatti’s decision to run. He’s one of several Democrats attempting to unseat GOP Rep. Rob Wittman. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has listed his 1st Congressional District as one of the more viable to flip in 2026. “People will die as a result of these cuts to their health care.” Bhatti said Wittman caused harm in his community by backing the OBBB, which is expected to cut millions of eligible individuals from SNAP and Medicaid. Wittman has argued the bill will have a positive impact on Virginians by extending Trump administration tax cuts and through no tax on tips and no tax on overtime. Virginians could lose healthcare access or could see increases to their care costs, Bhatti said. Additionally, the bill could raise already high energy, housing, and grocery costs. “People will die as a result of these cuts to their health care,” he said. “We really need to be mindful of how we can act quickly to make sure we can save as many folks as possible because of what these Republicans have done.” Throughout his campaign, Bhatti said he’s been educating voters about the long-term effects of the OBBB. This includes explaining how SNAP cuts impact the entire local economy, rather than just SNAP recipients. Without revenue from SNAP, grocery stores could increase costs or consider shutting down, which Bhatti said will increase food insecurity overall. Nikki Gronli, House (South Dakota) Nikki Gronli served as the state director for USDA’s Rural Development under the Biden administration from March 2022 to the end of the term. There she oversaw the renovation of a rural behavioral health facility, grants for tribes to develop a regional food hub, and more. Over that time, she also grew closer with the farming community in the state. In recent conversations with farmers, Gronli said, she’s heard concerns about a lack of staff at local rural development and USDA Farm Service Agency offices. Nearly 150,000 federal employees have left the government since Trump was inaugurated. At the USDA alone, 15,000 have departed due to deferred resignation offers. Those cuts have slowed down application reviews and approvals for farmers in her state, Gronli said. This is one of the main reasons she decided to launch her campaign to fill North Dakota’s lone House seat, currently occupied by Republican Rep. Dusty Johnson. Johnson, who chairs the House Agriculture subcommittee on Commodity Markets, Digital Assets, and Rural Development, announced his bid for governor earlier this year. Nikki Gronli announced her candidacy for South Dakota’s lone U.S. House seat in September, after touring the state earlier this year. (Getty Images) Before announcing, Gronli held town halls across the state, where she listened to farmers about their experiences and concerns. She also heard about the impacts of funding freezes across different USDA initiatives, like the Regional Food Business Center Program, she said. One local egg producer, for example, had planned to use a grant from that program to expand her operation with additional staff and packaging equipment, but the grant was eliminated. Farmers also raised alarm about the impact of tariffs, which Gronli said could have more wide-reaching impacts on the state. “Every time we lose a farmer, that impacts the local small towns, that hurts other businesses,” she said. “That may mean school consolidations, that may mean a clinic or a senior care center shuts down. It’s not good. It’s not sustainable.” South Dakota’s House seat has been held by a Republican since 2011, with the current secretary for Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, holding the role before Johnson. “Every time we lose a farmer, that impacts the local small towns, that hurts other businesses.” But Gronli said she’s received positive responses from traditionally Independent and Republican voters who want a representative to break the status quo and vote in favor of the state’s best interests. “I think that’s the big frustration,” she said. “We see our members of Congress out there voting because they were told by the administration to vote a certain way, and those policies are hurting South Dakota right now.” Christy Davis, Senate (Kansas) Christy Davis is a former Biden administration USDA state rural development director. If she advances from the primary, she likely faces Republican incumbent Sen. Roger Marshall. Davis said in an interview with the Kansas Reflector that Marshall has focused more on highlighting actions by the White House instead of issues all Kansans are facing, like trouble affording basic needs. She added that Marshall stood behind Trump during the OBBB signing and has supported what she calls the administration’s “broken ag policies,” like reorganizing the USDA and immigration actions that have hurt the agriculture workforce. The post Democratic Food and Ag Candidates Enter the Political Fray appeared first on Civil Eats.

UK plastic waste exports to developing countries rose 84% in a year, data shows

Campaigners say increase in exports mostly to Malaysia and Indonesia is ‘unethical and irresponsible waste imperialism’Britain’s exports of plastic waste to developing countries have soared by 84% in the first half of this year compared with last year, according to an analysis of trade data carried out for the Guardian.Campaigners described the rise in exports, mostly to Malaysia and Indonesia, as “unethical and irresponsible waste imperialism”. Continue reading...

Britain’s exports of plastic waste to developing countries have soared by 84% in the first half of this year compared with last year, according to an analysis of trade data carried out for the Guardian.Campaigners described the rise in exports, mostly to Malaysia and Indonesia, as “unethical and irresponsible waste imperialism”.In 2023, the EU agreed to ban exports of waste to poorer nations outside a group of mainly rich countries within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The ban comes into force in November 2026 for two and a half years and can be extended. The UK does not have a similar ban in place.Data analysed by the The Last Beach Cleanup, a US group campaigning to halt plastic pollution, showed that the increase in UK exports in the first half of 2025 was mainly to Indonesia (24,006 tonnes in 2025, up from 525 tonnes in 2024) and Malaysia (28,667 tonnes, up from 18,872 tonnes in 2024).Total plastic waste exports remained relatively high in the first half of 2024 and 2025, at 319,407 and 317,647 tonnes respectively. The percentage of UK plastic waste going directly to non-OECD countries was 20% of total plastic waste exports in 2025, up from 11% in 2024.The Last Beach Cleanup analysed data from the UN Comtrade database to reach its findings. Jan Dell, who works for the group, accused UK ministers of “hypocrisy” by failing to ban exports to poorer nations.“The UK is hypocritically saying, ‘we’re part of the high ambition coalition’, at the plastics talks. But behind the scenes, it is refusing to set a date to stop exporting to poorer countries,” she said. “We see it is increasing exports of its own plastic waste to places like Malaysia and Indonesia.”She added: “It is unethical and irresponsible waste imperialism.”After the collapse of the UN plastic treaty talks in August, Emma Hardy, under-secretary of state at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), said she was “hugely disappointed” an agreement had not been reached but was proud of the UK’s work towards an ambitious treaty.Britain was part of a “high ambition” coalition of nations calling for the treaty to include binding obligations on reducing plastic production and consumption, she said.Campaigners are calling for the UK, one of the top three countries exporting plastic waste, at about 600,000 tonnes a year, to follow the EU and ban exports to non-OECD countries. They also want to close a loophole that makes it cheaper to export plastic waste rather than recycle it in the UK.Plastic products, such as these found in Klang, Selangor in June, are often fly-tipped from factories processing imported plastic waste in Malaysia. Photograph: Basel Action NetworkThe Conservative government said in 2023 that it intended to ban plastic waste exports to non-OECD countries – but it never happened.Wong Pui Yi, a Malaysia-based consultant for Basel Action Network, a group championing global environmental health and justice, said there were “good guys and bad guys” in the waste trade.“A lot of waste traders are looking to reduce costs,” she said. “If waste falls into the hands of the bad actors, one of the easiest ways to reduce costs is to avoid environmental controls. In developing countries, it is easier to avoid environmental controls due to weaker laws and lower enforcement capacity.”In July, the UK’s exports of plastic waste to Malaysia dropped to 2.8% (1,500 tonnes), most likely due to the country’s new import restrictions. But as one country bans or tightens imports, as happened with China in 2018, the trade shifts elsewhere.The rise in UK plastic exports to Asia is likely to be an underestimate, experts say, because a lot goes to the Netherlands and other European countries where it can be shipped on. The UK also exports plastic to Turkey.James McLeary, the managing director of Biffa Polymers, a UK recycling firm, said the UK should take responsibility for its plastic waste.“It is just common sense as a human being” he said. “I don’t want my rubbish to end up in Malaysia. I don’t want to wonder if there is a boy whose life is wasted somewhere because of me throwing something in a bin outside my house.”Earlier this month, an investigation called Boy Wasted revealed that, for the last decade, two people were crushed, ripped, or burned to death in the recycling sector in Turkey every month.Adnan Khan, a Canadian journalist whose work on refugee labour in Turkey sparked the investigation, said that while Turkey had a licence system for recycling plastic waste, “my research shows that it is pretty easy to get a licence and the oversight is low. It’s a broken system.”All EU plastic waste exports should be banned to anywhere outside the EU, he said. “I would go further and say every country should take care of its own trash.”Defra did not respond to a request for comment.

Thousands join biggest-ever UK environmental lawsuit over river pollution

Livestock and water companies are accused of “extensive” pollution in the Wye, Lugg and Usk rivers.

Thousands join biggest-ever UK environmental lawsuit over river pollutionSteffan MessengerEnvironment correspondent, BBC WalesBBCThe Wye Valley is a designated Area of Outstanding Natural BeautyThe biggest legal claim ever brought in the UK over environmental pollution in the country has been filed at the High Court.Almost 4,000 people have signed up to the lawsuit against major poultry producers and a water company over allegations of "extensive and widespread pollution" in three rivers - the Wye, Lugg and Usk.They argue the state of the rivers in recent years has severely affected local businesses, property values and people's enjoyment of the area, and are seeking "substantial damages".The firms being sued - Avara Foods Limited, Freemans of Newent Limited and Welsh Water - all deny the claims.Celine O'Donovan, from the law firm Leigh Day, said the case was the largest brought in the UK over environmental pollution in the country on three counts – the number of claimants, the geographical scale of the damage and the total damages claimed.Those who have joined the group legal claim all either live or work alongside the rivers or use them regularly for leisure activities like swimming and canoeing.They want the court to order a clean-up of the rivers as well as compensation.A combination of chicken manure and sewage spills are blamed for harming water quality and suffocating fish and other wildlife.The Wye in particular has become symbolic of widespread concerns over the worsening state of the UK's waterways in recent years.As many as 23 million chickens, a quarter of the UK's poultry production, are raised in the river's catchment area.Justine EvansJustine Evans used to love swimming and canoeing on the River Wye but is now worried polluted water might make her illIt flows for 155 miles from its source in the Cambrian Mountains of mid Wales along the border with England to the Severn Estuary.The River Lugg is a major tributary of the Wye, flowing predominately through Herefordshire.The River Usk runs through the Bannau Brycheiniog National Park, also known as the Brecon Beacons, as well as the Blaenavon Industrial Landscape World Heritage Site before reaching the Bristol Channel at Newport.All three rivers are protected for their importance to rare wildlife, including otters, freshwater pearl mussels and the Atlantic salmon.Wildlife filmmaker Justine Evans is acting as the lead claimant and said she had noticed a "stark decline" in the Wye's condition in recent years.The once clear river had turned murky and slimy, completely changing how she felt about living alongside it, she said."It's horrible to think what has happened to the wildlife it is home to," she added.Friends of the lower WyeCampaigners have been raising concerns over the state of the river Wye for several yearsFormer Olympic swimmer Roland Lee moved to live near the Wye in order to have access to open water for swimming."But now I'd actually go as far as to warn people against going in," he said.Another claimant, Gino Parisi from Raglan, Monmouthshire, was worried about the state of the River Usk."Having grown up around the River Usk in the 1980s, I know just how beautiful the river and surrounding area can be," he said.Now the water had become "mucky and cloudy" and "you can see build-ups of foam in a number of spots"."Not only would I feel uncomfortable going in, but I'd also have concerns for my health."Why is the River Wye polluted?The claimants allege pollution has been caused by run-off from farmland containing high concentrations of phosphorus, nitrogen and bacteria from the spreading of poultry manure and sewage bio solids used as fertiliser.They also blame discharge of sewage directly into rivers.The companies being sued are accused of negligence, causing private and public nuisance and even trespass where the riverbed has been affected on a claimant's property.One part of the claim is brought on behalf of people affected by what is known as the Lugg Moratorium - restrictions on building brought in by Herefordshire County Council to protect the River Lugg from further pollution.Oliver Holland from Leigh Day said the claim was "the culmination of an extraordinary effort by local community members and campaign groups to research, monitor and advocate for their rivers"."This is the largest legal action concerning environmental pollution ever brought in the UK. In a context where government and regulators have failed to prevent the degradation of our rivers the court has become the last avenue for justice," he added.Gino ParisiGino Parisi has "many happy memories" of swimming and paddling in the River UskAvara Foods Limited is one of the largest poultry processors in the UK. Its subsidiary, Freemans of Newent, based in Hereford is also named as a defendant in the case. A spokesperson for Avara Foods told the BBC it shared concerns over the condition of the River Wye."But we believe that this legal claim is based on a misunderstanding, as no manure is stored or spread on poultry-only farms that supply Avara Foods."Where poultry manure is used as fertiliser, it is for other produce in other agricultural sectors," the company said, adding individual farmers were responsible for how nutrients were used in their arable operations. The company said it employed about 1,500 people in the Wye catchment area and all its poultry was produced "to standards that are amongst the highest in the world"."The focus instead needs to be on solutions that will improve the health of the river, addressing all forms of pollution and the effects of climate change, and for action to be taken accordingly," it said.Welsh Water said the company had made "significant investments over recent years", achieving "real improvements in water quality".These included spending £70m over the last five years to improve sites along the River Wye, work that was delivered "ahead of the target set by our regulators", and £33m for the River Usk."Unfortunately, the water pollution caused by other sectors during this period has increased significantly, reducing the overall impact of the water quality improvements we have achieved," a spokesperson said.The company intended to "defend this case robustly", they added."The fact that we are a not-for-profit company means that any payments to these claimants would necessarily reduce the amount that we can re-invest in delivering further improvements for the benefit of all of our customers and the environment."Environmental campaigners lost a high-profile legal challenge against the UK government over pollution in the river Wye in 2024.Ministers in Westminster and Cardiff Bay have since set up a joint £1m fund to investigate the sources of pollution in the river.

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.