Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

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

Accept Deny

GoGreenNation News

Learn more about the issues presented in our films
Show Filters

Ancient DNA may rewrite the story of Iceland's earliest settlers

Biochemical evidence suggests Norse people settled in Iceland almost 70 years before the accepted arrival date of the 870s, and didn't chop down the island's forests

Historical accounts say Ingólfr Arnarson was the first Norse settler of Iceland, arriving in the 870s, but this may not be truePublic domain Norse people may have lived in Iceland almost 70 years earlier than historians thought, and their arrival might not have been the environmental disaster it is often portrayed as. Historical accounts suggest that people first settled in Iceland in the 870s. This early migration is often depicted as an ecological disaster driven by Viking raiders or Norse settlers as they cleared the island’s forests for fuel, building material and fields. Forests now cover just 2 per cent of the country. Firm evidence for when the first settlers arrived has been hard to come by. Archaeologists have unearthed an ancient wooden longhouse near the fjord of Stöðvarfjörður in the east of Iceland dating to around AD 874, underneath which is an older longhouse thought to be a summer settlement built in the 800s rather than a permanent home, but this finding hasn’t yet been reported in a scientific paper. Now, Eske Willerslev at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark, and his colleagues have examined environmental DNA (eDNA) extracted from two sediment cores drilled at Lake Tjörnin in central Reykjavík, one of Iceland’s earliest and longest-occupied settlements, to see which species were present when. By examining layers of volcanic ash and using radiocarbon dating and plutonium isotope analysis, the researchers put together a timeline spanning from about AD 200 to the modern day, aligned with known historical events. One key marker they used is known as the Landnám tephra layer, the ash and fragments left over from a volcanic eruption in about AD 877. Most evidence of human occupation in Iceland sits above this layer, so it was laid down after the eruption. “Signs below the tephra are like the smoking gun that there was earlier human activity,” says Chris Callow at the University of Birmingham, UK, who wasn’t involved in the study. Willerslev and his colleagues suggest people arrived almost 70 years before that mark: about AD 810. That is because at this point, they saw an increase in a compound known as levoglucosan, an indicator of biomass burning, as well as a rise in viruses associated with sewage. “If it had been 850, I wouldn’t have been so surprised, but 810 is early for Viking expansion in the North Atlantic,” says Callow. “Overall, this is a nice confirmation of what we might have suspected, but it’s still quite controversial to have a date as early as 810.” Putting together this comprehensive environmental history of the region is phenomenal, but the evidence for such an early date isn’t conclusive, says Kathryn Catlin at Jacksonville State University in Alabama. “When it comes to sewage biomarkers, there is a little bump around 800 and then nothing until 1900. Where are all the indicators of humans in sewage biomarkers and the intervening time period?” she says. And although biomass burning can indicate the presence of people, fires can also be caused by natural sources like lightning, she adds. Willerslev and his colleagues, who declined to speak to New Scientist, also found that the arrival of settlers coincided with an increase in local biodiversity. The DNA record suggests they brought grazing livestock with them, grew hay meadows and practised small-scale barley cultivation for brewing beer. Contrary to the conventional view of rapid deforestation, eDNA from pollen revealed that birch and willow trees expanded during the settlement period. For example, birch pollen grains increased fivefold between AD 900 and 1200, which the researchers think could have been down to deliberate management, keeping livestock away from trees to ensure settlers continued to have easy access to wood for timber and fuel. “This is the nail in the coffin for that old just-so story of the Vikings getting to Iceland and then, suddenly, ‘oh no, the environment is destroyed’,” says Catlin. Noticeable numbers of sheep, cattle, pigs and horses don’t appear until several decades after the initial settlement, which Willerslev and his colleagues suggest is because it would have taken about 20 years to build big enough herds to be detectable in the eDNA record. Callow suggests an alternative reason: it could be that the first people didn’t bring many animals with them because they were coming just for the summer season in search of walrus ivory. “They could have been killing a few walruses and then going home again,” he says. The eDNA suggests that pronounced loss of biodiversity, including birch and willow trees, didn’t occur until after 1200. Willerslev and his colleagues suggest this was associated not with the presence of settlers, but with climate cooling related to the Little Ice Age – a period of colder conditions from about 1250 to 1860 – plus volcanic eruptions and storm surges.

Forests
Animals
Climate

Intensive livestock farms fail to declare climate impacts in ‘emissions scandal’

Local councils are giving the green light to large-scale pig and poultry farms with patchy or non-existent climate dataPlans for intensive livestock “megafarms” are omitting crucial climate impacts, it can be revealed.Campaigners last year celebrated a “beginning of the end” to polluting factory farming, after the landmark Finch supreme court ruling on a Surrey oil well confirmed that applications for major developments should consider all significant direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions. Continue reading...

Plans for intensive livestock “megafarms” are omitting crucial climate impacts, it can be revealed.Campaigners last year celebrated a “beginning of the end” to polluting factory farming, after the landmark Finch supreme court ruling on a Surrey oil well confirmed that applications for major developments should consider all significant direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions.However, a review of 35 proposed developments across the UK’s largest farming counties since the June 2024 ruling found that applications routinely ignored or downplayed the industry’s carbon footprint.The research by advocacy group Sustain, which was analysed by DeSmog and the Guardian, looked at all applications for Herefordshire, Lincolnshire, Norfolk, Suffolk, Nottinghamshire, Shropshire, Yorkshire, Wales and Northern Ireland which were under consideration by local councils between the 2024 ruling and September this year.Farms housing more than 900 sows, 3,000 pigs, 60,000 hens for eggs, or 85,000 chickens for meat are required to provide information on expected environmental impacts under UK law when applying for planning permission.The applications reviewed were mainly submitted by UK-based farm companies, but some were from major meat producers – including Crown Chicken, a subsidiary of Cranswick, which is one of the largest meat companies in Europe and slaughters nearly 60 million birds a year. Cranswick was responsible for three million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions in 2024.If all applications reviewed were accepted for development, an additional 30,000 pigs and nearly five million chickens would be farmed across England, Northern Ireland and Wales – amounting to more than 37 million additional animals reared in the UK each year.Intensive pig and poultry farms are high emitters of methane and nitrous oxide, potent greenhouse gases that cause about 30 and 300 times more global warming respectively than carbon dioxide over a 100-year period. According to Sustain’s estimates, if all the applications analysed were approved this could generate an estimated 634,000 tonnes of CO2-equivalent emissions annually — the equivalent of 488,000 return flights from London to New York.None of the 35 applications provided figures on likely emissions from the farm, despite the fact that councils are required to factor in climate harms in planning decisions. Government policies say that local planning should support the country’s goal to reach net zero by 2050.The findings come as numbers of intensive livestock farms increase across Europe, with more than 1,500 industrial-scale pig and poultry farms operating in the UK.“Vital information is being kept from councils and the public,” Ruth Westcott, campaign manager at Sustain, said.“It’s clear that agribusinesses don’t want to come clean about the pollution they cause because it could affect whether they are allowed to expand, and thus make more profits at the expense of our communities,” she added. “It’s an emissions scandal.”Councils are facing growing pressure from residents to refuse planning permission to companies which fail to robustly assess climate impacts.In April, after public pressure, King’s Lynn & West Norfolk borough council denied planning permission for the Methwold megafarm that would have housed almost 900,000 chickens and pigs, partly due to its lack of climate assessment – making it the first-known refusal on these grounds.Breckland council in Norfolk likewise refused planning permission to the Cherry Tree Farm in October, in part because it had not provided an updated environmental impact assessment, including “project-specific carbon emissions”. The farm – which is owned by Wayland Farms, also a subsidiary of Cranswick – was forced to apply for retrospective approval for previously completed construction. Local residents had made complaints over the “stench” after its expansion in 2019.When asked about the lack of climate data in its applications, Cranswick declined to comment.In total, four of the applications reviewed have been refused so far – three of which were submitted by Cranswick.However, other councils in Norfolk, Nottinghamshire, Suffolk, Lincolnshire and Yorkshire have approved six farms that have not provided any specific information on the farm’s climate impacts in the past 12 months, the research shows.Councils which responded to requests for comment said they had complied with planning regulations, and that they were unable to comment on individual planning applications.More than half (57%) of the planning applications reviewed were for major extensions and alterations, and the remainder for new farms.Jan Palmer – a resident of Methwold village in Norfolk who campaigned against the Cranswick megafarm that was denied planning permission in April – has called for greater scrutiny of impacts from proposed farms.skip past newsletter promotionThe planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essentialPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotion“These are industrial developments. It’s called industrial farming, and it has industrial emissions,” she said. “If my local megafarm application hadn’t been so fiercely challenged, and by so many, it would’ve slipped through the system like so many others do – quietly and without scrutiny but with devastating consequences.”Companies seeking permission for any large-scale developments – ranging from motorways and oil and gas extraction sites to intensive farms – are required to conduct environmental impact assessments showing the likely effects of developments on biodiversity, the climate, and other environmental factors.Applications for intensive livestock farms routinely include information on issues such as air pollutants and unpleasant smells, the review showed. However, the vast majority of applications overlooked climate impacts.Of the applications reviewed, 35% mentioned the farm’s operations only in passing, while 55% did not discuss these climate impacts at all.Large projects must assess all “significant environmental impacts” under UK planning law. Lawyers said few cases had so far tested the threshold for significant climate impacts from farms in the courts, but given the well-documented emissions from intensive farming, applications could face growing challenges in coming years.“Where the companies are not assessing their climate impacts, they may be open to legal challenge,” said Ricardo Gama, an environmental lawyer at Leigh Day solicitors. “Agriculture has flown under the radar on so many of these issues, but I think that is changing.”Over the past year, six local councils have granted permission to applications which did not contain any assessment of the farms’ likely emissions, as well as one that granted permission to a farm with only passing discussion, the research shows.Planning authorities have an obligation to consider all relevant environmental impacts before granting permission, according to legal experts.While applicants propose which environmental impacts should be assessed as part of planning applications, it is the council’s legal responsibility to ensure that all significant effects are covered and that adequate information on these is provided before granting planning permission.“When the council or the inspector or the secretary of state is considering whether to grant planning permission, climate impacts need to be weighed in the balance,” Gama said. “I think councils’ approach[es] will change as the public becomes more aware of the climate impact of agriculture.”The research found that environmental assessments also repeatedly failed to discuss emissions that did not directly arise on the farms. Of the 35 applications reviewed, just one included information on the farm’s likely emissions from animal feed – the largest source of greenhouse gases for both big livestock and poultry.The majority of pigs and chickens in the UK are fed soy, which is one of the biggest drivers of deforestation in regions such as the Amazon. According to campaign group WWF, the UK’s demand for soy requires more than 1.7m hectares of land each year – an area larger than Northern Ireland.One environmental impact assessment for the expansion of a poultry megafarm currently under consideration in Shropshire – which would increase its total number of birds to up to 350,000 – stated that carbon dioxide emitted from the development would be offset “due to the reduction in emissions from transporting poultry meat from elsewhere”.Transportation accounts for between just 5-7% of total emissions from chickens reared in the UK.A Shropshire council spokesperson said applications were processed “in accordance with [EIA] regulations”, which included taking into account direct and indirect effects of the proposed development on the environment.

Climate
Agriculture
Business

What should countries do with their nuclear waste?

A new study by MIT researchers analyzes different nuclear waste management strategies, with a focus on the radionuclide iodine-129.

One of the highest-risk components of nuclear waste is iodine-129 (I-129), which stays radioactive for millions of years and accumulates in human thyroids when ingested. In the U.S., nuclear waste containing I-129 is scheduled to be disposed of in deep underground repositories, which scientists say will sufficiently isolate it.Meanwhile, across the globe, France routinely releases low-level radioactive effluents containing iodine-129 and other radionuclides into the ocean. France recycles its spent nuclear fuel, and the reprocessing plant discharges about 153 kilograms of iodine-129 each year, under the French regulatory limit.Is dilution a good solution? What’s the best way to handle spent nuclear fuel? A new study by MIT researchers and their collaborators at national laboratories quantifies I-129 release under three different scenarios: the U.S. approach of disposing spent fuel directly in deep underground repositories, the French approach of dilution and release, and an approach that uses filters to capture I-129 and disposes of them in shallow underground waste repositories.The researchers found France’s current practice of reprocessing releases about 90 percent of the waste’s I-129 into the biosphere. They found low levels of I-129 in ocean water around France and the U.K.’s former reprocessing sites, including the English Channel and North Sea. Although the low level of I-129 in the water in Europe is not considered to pose health risks, the U.S. approach of deep underground disposal leads to far less I-129 being released, the researchers found.The researchers also investigated the effect of environmental regulations and technologies related to I-129 management, to illuminate the tradeoffs associated with different approaches around the world.“Putting these pieces together to provide a comprehensive view of Iodine-129 is important,” says MIT Assistant Professor Haruko Wainwright, a first author on the paper who holds a joint appointment in the departments of Nuclear Science and Engineering and of Civil and Environmental Engineering. “There are scientists that spend their lives trying to clean up iodine-129 at contaminated sites. These scientists are sometimes shocked to learn some countries are releasing so much iodine-129. This work also provides a life-cycle perspective. We’re not just looking at final disposal and solid waste, but also when and where release is happening. It puts all the pieces together.”MIT graduate student Kate Whiteaker SM ’24 led many of the analyses with Wainwright. Their co-authors are Hansell Gonzalez-Raymat, Miles Denham, Ian Pegg, Daniel Kaplan, Nikolla Qafoku, David Wilson, Shelly Wilson, and Carol Eddy-Dilek. The study appears today in Nature Sustainability.Managing wasteIodine-129 is often a key focus for scientists and engineers as they conduct safety assessments of nuclear waste disposal sites around the world. It has a half-life of 15.7 million years, high environmental mobility, and could potentially cause cancers if ingested. The U.S. sets a strict limit on how much I-129 can be released and how much I-129 can be in drinking water — 5.66 nanograms per liter, the lowest such level of any radionuclides.“Iodine-129 is very mobile, so it is usually the highest-dose contributor in safety assessments,” Wainwright says.For the study, the researchers calculated the release of I-129 across three different waste management strategies by combining data from current and former reprocessing sites as well as repository assessment models and simulations.The authors defined the environmental impact as the release of I-129 into the biosphere that humans could be exposed to, as well as its concentrations in surface water. They measured I-129 release per the total electrical energy generated by a 1-gigawatt power plant over one year, denoted as kg/GWe.y.Under the U.S. approach of deep underground disposal with barrier systems, assuming the barrier canisters fail at 1,000 years (a conservative estimate), the researchers found 2.14 x 10–8 kg/GWe.y of I-129 would be released between 1,000 and 1 million years from today.They estimate that 4.51 kg/GWe.y of I-129, or 91 percent of the total, would be released into the biosphere in the scenario where fuel is reprocessed and the effluents are diluted and released. About 3.3 percent of I-129 is captured by gas filters, which are then disposed of in shallow subsurfaces as low-level radioactive waste. A further 5.2 percent remains in the waste stream of the reprocessing plant, which is then disposed of as high-level radioactive waste.If the waste is recycled with gas filters to directly capture I-129, 0.05 kg/GWe.y of the I-129 is released, while 94 percent is disposed of in the low-level disposal sites. For shallow disposal, some kind of human disruption and intrusion is assumed to occur after government or institutional control expires (typically 100-1,000 years). That results in a potential release of the disposed amount to the environment after the control period.Overall, the current practice of recycling spent nuclear fuel releases the majority of I-129 into the environment today, while the direct disposal of spent fuel releases around 1/100,000,000 that amount over 1 million years. When the gas filters are used to capture I-129, the majority of I-129 goes to shallow underground repositories, which could be accidentally released through human intrusion down the line.The researchers also quantified the concentration of I-129 in different surface waters near current and former fuel reprocessing facilities, including the English Channel and the North Sea near reprocessing plants in France and U.K. They also analyzed the U.S. Columbia River downstream of a site in Washington state where material for nuclear weapons was produced during the Cold War, and they studied a similar site in South Carolina. The researchers found far higher concentrations of I-129 within the South Carolina site, where the low-level radioactive effluents were released far from major rivers and hence resulted in less dilution in the environment.“We wanted to quantify the environmental factors and the impact of dilution, which in this case affected concentrations more than discharge amounts,” Wainwright says. “Someone might take our results to say dilution still works: It’s reducing the contaminant concentration and spreading it over a large area. On the other hand, in the U.S., imperfect disposal has led to locally higher surface water concentrations. This provides a cautionary tale that disposal could concentrate contaminants, and should be carefully designed to protect local communities.”Fuel cycles and policyWainwright doesn’t want her findings to dissuade countries from recycling nuclear fuel. She says countries like Japan plan to use increased filtration to capture I-129 when they reprocess spent fuel. Filters with I-129 can be disposed of as low-level waste under U.S. regulations.“Since I-129 is an internal carcinogen without strong penetrating radiation, shallow underground disposal would be appropriate in line with other hazardous waste,” Wainwright says. “The history of environmental protection since the 1960s is shifting from waste dumping and release to isolation. But there are still industries that release waste into the air and water. We have seen that they often end up causing issues in our daily life — such as CO2, mercury, PFAS and others — especially when there are many sources or when bioaccumulation happens. The nuclear community has been leading in waste isolation strategies and technologies since the 1950s. These efforts should be further enhanced and accelerated. But at the same time, if someone does not choose nuclear energy because of waste issues, it would encourage other industries with much lower environmental standards.”The work was supported by MIT’s Climate Fast Forward Faculty Fund and the U.S. Department of Energy.

Waste
Climate
Government

Mark Carney sets his sights on Trudeau's legacy

The prime minister’s first budget revisits a decade of Liberal policy on climate, taxes and the public service.

OTTAWA — Canada’s prime minister unveiled his first federal budget plan on Tuesday, a long-awaited moment in the annual cycle of Canadian politics when Ottawa tells the country how it wants to spend hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars.And with that plan, Mark Carney is openly dismantling parts of Justin Trudeau's legacy — an ongoing project in service to economic growth and a more muscular Canada.Carney’s ambitious blueprint aims to slim down the federal public service that ballooned under Trudeau’s watch, while spending tens of billions on national defense and billions more on trade, transport and health infrastructure.The plan also sets its sights on reworking, winding down or eliminating various climate, energy and tax policies that helped define Trudeau's decade in power.Farees Nathoo, a former director of parliamentary affairs and issues management to then-Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland, said the budget stands out from the Trudeau era because of its policy focus and fiscal discipline."The budget quite tactically conveys Prime Minister Carney’s economic policy and puts forward a new brand — including by very explicitly differentiating himself from some of Mr. Trudeau’s hallmark commitments," said Nathoo, who is now vice president of strategy and risk at Enterprise Canada. "Carney is focused on infrastructure, housing, defense and productivity."But Carney is skating on thin parliamentary ice. His Liberal government is two seats short of a majority in the House of Commons, and will need the support of at least one opposition party to approve the fiscal plan and avoid an election.Carney is also fending off a Conservative Party that nearly won power after Trudeau's departure — and NDP and Bloc Québécois MPs who've threatened to vote against his budget.Trudeau, we hardly knew yeThe budget book is peppered with reminders that this is no longer Trudeau's Ottawa. The former PM brought in ambitious social programs, including child care, pharma care and dental care. He also prioritized climate and energy programs and regulations that reshaped Canada's effort to curb emissions, and raised the bar for resource project approvals.Carney preserved most of those measures, but not everything made the cut.Gone is a decade-long effort to plant 2 billion trees — a pledge first made in 2019 that struggled mightily to keep pace with planting goals.And federal workers are in for anxious times.Carney's plan notes the federal bureaucracy ballooned by 40 percent during the 10 years Trudeau was in power, an "unsustainable" pace that has "left federal finances strained." Departments and agencies are planning to shed roughly 10 percent of the workforce — "about 40,000 positions."In a stark departure from the former PM's aims, fine print in the budget acknowledges that men will disproportionately benefit from some proposals.Trudeau came to power on a promise to infuse gender equality into government operations.He famously explained that his front bench featured an equal number of men and women "because it's 2015." Ten years later, Carney has maintained that parity.But he's also proposing measures that, by the government's own admission, favor men.One example: The government will eliminate a Trudeau-era luxury tax on aircraft and boats, which an annex at the back of the budget documents takes time to explain will favor buyers who are "disproportionately higher income and primarily men."A shift on climate changeCarney's first order of business in office was using a Sharpie to zero out an unpopular consumer carbon price that he called "divisive."Carney is not getting rid of an industrial price on carbon that has Conservatives howling, nor is he moving to repeal a tanker ban on the West Coast or controversial environmental assessment regulations.The government is, though, hinting at winding down an oil and gas emissions cap that Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has for years claimed is a drag on industry — one of several climate-focused measures that soured relations between Smith and Trudeau.The government didn't exactly promise to eliminate the cap, but it signaled a suite of other emission reduction policies could make it unnecessary.The budget document claims carbon markets, methane regulations and carbon capture technology could render an emissions cap redundant, "as it would have marginal value in reducing emissions."Smith has joined industry voices in railing against anti-“greenwashing” provisions that penalize companies that make false or misleading environmental claims. Smith says the law poses a threat to free speech.Carney intends to amend part of that law, which is "creating investment uncertainty and having the opposite of the desired effect."Earlier this year, Carney also paused a Trudeau-era push to mandate the sale of electric vehicles. The budget documents promise "next steps … in the coming weeks."In 2022, when German then-Chancellor Olaf Scholz visited Canada, Trudeau took heat for raising doubts about the "business case" for LNG exports to Germany.The government is now renewing an expired measure that allowed LNG companies to write off the depreciated cost of liquefaction equipment. That measure, in place as of Wednesday only for "low-carbon" facilities, is meant to "accelerate the type of business investment that will drive productivity growth in Canada."Hey America, this one's for youCarney is also ratcheting up defense spending as an olive branch to a Trump administration that demanded NATO members bulk up their contributions to the alliance.Trudeau eventually promised to spend the NATO benchmark of 2 percent of GDP by 2030. Earlier this year, Carney promised to hit it by March — and then agreed to meet NATO's new 5-percent minimum by 2035.In another nod across the border, Americans who own property in Canada will also welcome the government's plans to cancel a 1 percent annual tax on the value of "vacant or underused" properties.Former Rep. Brian Higgins, a Democrat who represented part of Buffalo, New York, long railed against the levy. He argued it unfairly punished Americans — and he even advocated for retaliation.The budget documents acknowledge the group of taxpayers who will benefit from the axed measure "likely includes a high percentage of non-resident, non-Canadians."

Climate
Business
Government

Ohio scrapped a key tool to fight air pollution. Advocates want it back.

As of Sept. 30, Ohio lawmakers eliminated a key legal tool used to rein in air pollution from power plants and industrial sites. Now, advocates are suing to restore that right. For decades, environmental groups in Ohio and elsewhere have used air nuisance rules in state plans as a catchall way to enforce the federal…

As of Sept. 30, Ohio lawmakers eliminated a key legal tool used to rein in air pollution from power plants and industrial sites. Now, advocates are suing to restore that right. For decades, environmental groups in Ohio and elsewhere have used air nuisance rules in state plans as a catchall way to enforce the federal Clean Air Act. Ohio’s version let people take legal action against companies whose emissions ​“endanger the health, safety or welfare of the public, or cause unreasonable injury or damage to property.” The rule dates back more than 50 years. Defendants in cases brought under Ohio’s version of the rule have included Suncoke Energy, AK Steel–Middletown Works, Georgia-Pacific Corp., and Phthalchem. Consent decrees and settlements have produced orders or agreements to stop alleged nuisances, clean up waste, and expand monitoring. But a last-minute addition to the state’s 3,156-page budget bill, House Bill 96, told the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to cut that protection out of the state’s Clean Air Act plan. “The air nuisance rule is the tool that Ohioans have to hold polluters accountable,” said Neil Waggoner, the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign manager for the Midwest. ​“This is the state government saying … we’re going to take this away from you in the most secretive fashion possible.” Experts warn that eliminating the right to file air nuisance complaints weakens Ohio’s enforcement of pollution measures at an already perilous moment for environmental regulation. For months, the Trump administration has been rolling back federal pollution standards and making huge personnel cuts to the staff charged with enforcing the remaining rules and permits. The Ohio EPA has authority to enforce the Clean Air Act but doesn’t always pursue alleged violations. “Both at the federal and state level, we’re seeing less enforcement,” said Miranda Leppla, who heads Case Western Reserve University’s Environmental Law Clinic and represents the Ohio Environmental Council and the Sierra Club in the lawsuit. ​“If Ohioans don’t have the ability to bring these enforcement actions on their own through the air nuisance rule, there’s a very serious concern that air quality will continue to degrade and Ohioans’ health will get worse.” Echoing a recent law in Louisiana, HB 96 also blocks the Ohio EPA from acting on data that groups may collect through community air-monitoring efforts. Such data can fill important gaps and alert communities and enforcement officials to problems that may not be detected by EPA monitors miles away. Ohio’s limits on using the data will particularly harm fence-line communities, Leppla said.

Pollution
Energy
Health

Where’s nature positive? Australia must ensure environment reforms work to restore what’s been lost

Australia is among many countries working to protect and restore nature at scale. But long-awaited environmental law reforms won’t help much as they stand.

Kai Wing Yiu/GettyFor decades, conservation was focused on stemming how much nature was being lost. But a new era of nature positive environmental policy is taking hold worldwide, shifting from preventing further harm to restoring what’s been lost. In 2022, almost 200 countries signed up to the goal of 30 by 30 – restoring 30% of lands and seas by 2030. Globally, the goal is to restore an area almost the size of India. Australia is working towards this international goal of increasing protection and restoring the highest priority areas under its Strategy for Nature. Over the last two centuries, Australia has already lost much biodiversity. Laws should play a key role in protecting and restoring nature. But Australia’s national Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act is not currently fit for purpose. The 2020 Samuel Review concluded the existing laws do not “facilitate the maintenance or restoration of the environment”. In 2022, the Australian government promised to reverse the decline of nature with new nature positive laws which would repair ecosystems and help species recover. Shortly afterwards, parliament created a national Nature Repair Market to provide incentives for land managers to restore degraded ecosystems. After a failed attempt at reform last year, the federal government last week announced its long-awaited broader reform package. In introducing the bill, Environment Minister Murray Watt said the laws would enable “stronger environmental protection and restoration”. Will these reforms be a game changer for restoration? It’s not so clear. Protecting habitat isn’t enough – restoration will be essential to stop the decline of nature. Adam Campbell/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND What would the proposed laws do for restoration? Labor’s reform bills run to over 550 pages. This level of complexity means it’s hard to give a definitive answer on what the reforms would do for restoration. At this stage, it appears that while the package contains long-awaited reforms, it falls short on ecosystem restoration. The cornerstone of the reforms will be a new power for the Environment Minister to create National Environmental Standards, as called for in the Samuel Review. Once in place, they would work by requiring environment approvals not to be inconsistent with any standard. These standards have been watered down somewhat. The Samuel Review recommended binding national standards which would outline clear requirements for protecting endangered species and other nationally significant matters. Under the current reforms, the minister is not obliged to make any standards and environment approvals need only be “not inconsistent” with them. The reform package continues Australia’s reliance on environmental offsets – the practice of allowing developers to destroy habitat in one place by “compensating” for it by restoring habitat elsewhere. The text of the draft bills suggests a developer must compensate for any long-lasting significant impact through offsets or paying a restoration contribution. The goal is to have a net gain for nature. This sounds promising, but the concept of “net gain” is unclear and the focus on offsets still assumes the loss of nature somewhere. A better option would be if developers were legally required to explore ways to avoid or mitigate environmental damage first before relying on offsets. While the minister must “consider” this hierarchy of options in making decisions, they’re not actually obliged to apply it. Overall, this is disappointing. Rather than creating new incentives for restoration at a landscape scale, restoration work will instead be linked to the traditional legal model of approval for specific, environmentally degrading projects through the use of offsets and restoration elsewhere. The new “restoration contributions” scheme is even more troubling. It would allow developers to contribute to an offset fund rather than undertake the work themselves. This would be a shortcut, allowing developers to pay for environmental destruction. Offsets should only be used where habitat can genuinely be replaced. But as they stand, these reforms don’t require assessment of whether offsets are even feasible for a particular project. Biodiversity offsets have also been thoroughly criticised for their failure to prevent loss of nature, let alone generate nature positive outcomes. The reforms would also allow biodiversity certificates issued under the Nature Repair Market to serve as offsets, despite the government ruling this out in 2023. Linking the nature repair market to offsets may divert investment away from some types of restoration projects. It diminishes the net gain from voluntary restoration when the results merely compensate for a loss elsewhere. Planning across landscapes To boost ecological restoration, the Samuel Review recommended better planning at the national and regional scale. Taking a zoomed-out view would help environmental planners connect habitat, safeguard climate refuges and protect critical habitat on a landscape scale. These new reforms seem to be a step forward on this front. The minister, though, would retain a power to make bioregional plans at their discretion. If plans are made under the environment laws, they should specify zones for development and areas where restoration will be undertaken. It’s heartening to see restoration included in these plans. The problem is, restoration is still tied to land-degrading activities such as mining or land clearing. That is, it’s done as a response to new damage caused to the environment, not to repair already degraded landscapes. Landscape-scale planning will be essential in arresting nature’s decline. Ant Le Breton/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND Time for a new model What’s missing from the proposed reforms is a positive agenda to address Australia’s deep historic losses of nature. As the draft laws are debated in parliament, the best outcome would be if clear measures to actually restore nature at landscape-scale and to do it actively, rather than as a response to development damage. An excellent example Australia could look to is the European Union’s Nature Restoration Law adopted last year. It sets ambitious targets to restore the EU’s heavily degraded ecosystems: 30% by 2030, 90% by 2050. The targets would help restore biodiversity while combating climate change and boosting nature-based adaptation. Under the law, EU states must prepare their own national restoration plans. Prototype ecosystem restoration laws are also being developed by the international Society for Ecological Restoration. After decades of decline and species loss, Australians deserve environment laws which genuinely protect and restore unique wildlife and ecosystems. The government’s proposed reforms have promise. But they don’t yet make restoration the national priority it must be. Emille Boulot receives funding from the Society for Ecological Restoration. She is affiliated with the Australian Environment Review and the Tasmanian National Parks Association. Jan McDonald receives funding from the Australian Research Council, is a Director of the Tasmanian Land Conservancy and a member of the Department of Environment, Climate Change, Energy and Water's Biodiversity Assessment Expert Reference Group.

Nature
Climate
Energy

Vietnam Rethinks Its Flood Strategy as Climate Change Drives Storms and Devastation

Vietnam is rethinking how it copes with floods after a year of relentless storms has collapsed hillsides and turned streets into rivers

HANOI, Vietnam (AP) — Vietnam is rethinking how it copes with floods after a year of relentless storms collapsed hillsides and left vast parts of cities under water. From mapping high-risk areas to reimagining “sponge cities” that can absorb and release water naturally, Vietnam is investing billions to adapt to what experts call a new era of climate extremes. Under a national master plan running through 2030, the government has pledged more than $6 billion to build early-warning systems and move communities out of danger. In smaller cities like Vinh in central Vietnam, these ideas are taking shape. Drainage networks are expanding, flood basins are being carved and riverbanks turned into green spaces that can absorb and then drain off after heavy rains. An onslaught of storms this year has underscored the urgency of that work: Ragasa, Bualoi, Matmo — each carved its own path of ruin. Record rainfall turned streets into rivers and sent slopes sliding, with barely any time for the land to recover between storms. As Typhoon Kalmaegi was gathering strength on its path toward Vietnam this week, scientists warned it may not be the last. It's a glimpse of the country’s climate future — warmer seas fueling storms that form faster, linger longer, and dump heavier rain, hitting the poorest communities hardest.“Vietnam and its neighbors are on the front lines of climate disruption,” said Benjamin Horton, a professor of earth science at City University of Hong Kong. Climate change is reshaping Vietnam’s storm season Scientists say the succession of storms battering Vietnam is not a fluke but part of a broader shift in how storms behave on a warming planet. Vietnam usually faces about a dozen storms a year, but the 2025 cluster was a “clear signal” of global warming, said Horton.Ocean waters are now nearly 1 degree Celsius (33.8 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than before the industrial era. So storms carry more moisture. The economic toll has been severe for Vietnam, a developing country that wants to become rich by 2045. Floods routinely disrupt farming, fisheries, and factories — the backbone of its economy. State media estimate extreme weather has cost the country $1.4 billion in 2025.Vietnam estimates it will need to spend $55 billion–$92 billion in this decade to manage and adapt to the impacts of climate change. Vietnam’s cities aren’t built for climate shocks About 18 million people, nearly a fifth of Vietnam’s population, live in its two biggest cities, Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City. Both are on river deltas that once served as natural buffers against flooding. But as concrete spread over wetlands and farmlands, the cities lost their capacity to absorb downpours.Flooding in Hanoi in October lingered for nearly a week in some neighborhoods. The city of over 8 million has outgrown its infrastructure and its colonial-era drainage system failed as streets turned into brown canals. Motorbikes sputtered in waist-deep water and the Red River’s levees were tested.Vegetable seller Dang Thuan's home flooded knee-deep, spoiling her stock. Her neighborhood used to have several ponds, but they were filled in to build houses and roads. Now the water has nowhere to go.“We can’t afford to move,” she said, “So every time it rains hard, we just wait and hope.”In 1986-1996, the decade coinciding with ‘Doi Moi’ economic reforms that unleashed a construction boom, Hanoi lost nearly two-thirds of water bodies in its four core urban districts, according to a study by Kyoto University's Center for Southeast Asian Studies. Between 2015 and 2020, it lost water bodies spanning the area of 285 soccer fields, state media have reported.More than three-quarters of Hanoi’s area — including much of its densely populated core — is at risk of flooding, according to a 2024 study. Flooding in the city can’t be solved by building more, said Hong Ngoc Nguyen, lead author of the study and an environmental engineer at the Japanese consultancy Nippon Koei.“We can’t control the water,” she said, pointing to Singapore’s shift from concrete canals to greener riverbanks that slow and hold stormwater instead of rushing it away. A global problem with lessons in nature The idea of designing cities to “live with water” is gaining traction globally, including in Vietnam. Vietnam's recent floods have sparked a wider conversation about how cities should deal with storms. The former director of the National Institute of Urban and Rural Planning, Ngo Trung Hai, told the state-run newspaper Hanoi Times that the city must learn to live with heavy rainfall and adopt long-term strategies. European business associations have urged Vietnam’s financial capital Ho Chi Minh City to adopt a “sponge city” approach.Real estate developers have faced criticism in state media for improper building practices, such as building on low-lying land or roads unconnected to storm sewer systems and treating water bodies as “landscape features” rather than ways to drain storm water.Some of Vietnam’s biggest property developers have begun to adapt. In the coastal tourism hub of Nha Trang, the Sun Group is building a new township modeled as a “sponge city” with wetlands covering 60 hectares (148 acres), designed to store and reuse rainwater to reduce flooding and absorb heat.City planners must account for future climate risks, said Anna Beswick, who studies climate adaptation at the London School of Economics.“If we plan based on past experience, we won’t be resilient in the future,” she said.The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Oct. 2025

Climate
Business
Nature

Texas set to make $20 billion investment in water after voters approve Proposition 4

Texas will use $1 billion in sales tax a year for the next two decades to help secure the state’s water supply.

Subscribe to The Y’all — a weekly dispatch about the people, places and policies defining Texas, produced by Texas Tribune journalists living in communities across the state. Audio recording is automated for accessibility. Humans wrote and edited the story. See our AI policy, and give us feedback. Texas is poised to make the largest investment in its water supply in the state’s 180-year history as voters on Tuesday are on track to approve Proposition 4, which authorizes $20 billion to be spent on water projects over the next two decades.  The vote comes at a time when communities are scrambling to find new water supplies to meet the needs of their growing population, all the while deteriorating infrastructure, and a warming climate threatens the state’s water supply.   Throughout Texas’ history, ensuring water supply has rarely been a partisan issue. Many see it as a precious resource essential to both survival and the prosperity of the state’s economy. However, this year proved that water is personal and deeply emotional too. Proposed reservoirs and groundwater exports in East Texas have outraged many in the water-rich region, desalination projects along the Coastal Bend region have sparked political debate amid a water crisis, and data centers expanding across arid West Texas have locals worried about their dwindling groundwater supply. These challenges and others pushed lawmakers to make big investments in water at the Capitol this year. “Prop 4 is the culmination of almost 30 years of bipartisan work to create reliable and predictable funding for Texas water,” said Sarah Rountree Schlessinger, CEO of Texas Water Foundation, a nonprofit that educates Texans on water issues.  “We are thrilled that Texans showed up, asked deep questions, and that they chose to prioritize water infrastructure needs across the state. That tells you a lot about the state of Texas water.” A portion of existing state sales tax revenue — up to $1 billion annually — would be deposited into the Texas Water Fund each year, starting in 2027 to help fund water, wastewater and flood infrastructure projects.  The funding comes from existing revenue, meaning no new taxes would be created. However, the money would only be transferred to the fund when sales tax collections exceed $46.5 billion in a given year. The past two fiscal years have surpassed that amount. Assuming the state’s growth continues, there will be enough money available to dedicate the $1 billion to the fund.  The $20 billion is far short of what the state needs to maintain its water infrastructure. According to one estimate, Texas communities need nearly $154 billion over the next 50 years for projects. Both rural and urban communities will be able to tap the fund to address their existing infrastructure needs. The money will be managed by the Texas Water Development Board, the state agency that oversees the state’s water supply. Funding would be divided into two categories: water supply projects, and other existing water programs.  Water supply projects would expand the overall volume of water available in Texas. Projects that could be paid for include desalination, which cleans salty water for drinking and agricultural use, fixing leaking pipes, water reuse, which includes treating wastewater and  produced water from the oil and gas industry, conservation strategies and constructing permitted reservoirs. Existing water programs include improving flood control infrastructure and flood mitigation, ensuring clean drinking water, and agricultural water conservation.  While oil and gas, and big statewide water groups in Texas supported the proposition, some environmental groups were concerned that certain projects, like reservoirs, will be prioritized as a form of new water supply and take the land of farmers and residents who live in areas where they plan to be built.  Other organizations feared it will help fund mega projects like desalination, which they believe will help industry expansion in their communities, and that local communities will be cut out of water decisions. Some conservative groups argued that spending should not be written into the Texas Constitution.   The proposition does not greenlight projects, but rather provides a way to finance projects. Any particular project that receives funds from the Water Development Board will go through a regular application process. The Texas Water Foundation said that the proposition prohibits the transfer of groundwater. The fund also comes with some oversight. Lawmakers have created a special committee to oversee the water board’s administration of the funding. The water board will be required to report on how the money is being distributed and the impact they are having in meeting state needs and the public will have a chance to give input.  Disclosure: Texas Water Foundation has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

Water
Climate
Crisis

New set of forest towns to be built between Oxford and Cambridge

Communities in the middle of new national forest to show how housebuilding can be delivered alongside natureA new set of forest towns will be built in the area between Oxford and Cambridge, nestled in the middle of a new national forest.After facing anger from nature groups over the deregulation in the upcoming planning bill, ministers are trying to demonstrate that mass housebuilding can be delivered in conjunction with new nature. The government has promised to plant millions of trees to boost England’s nature. Continue reading...

A new set of forest towns will be built in the area between Oxford and Cambridge, nestled in the middle of a new national forest.After facing anger from nature groups over the deregulation in the upcoming planning bill, ministers are trying to demonstrate that mass housebuilding can be delivered in conjunction with new nature. The government has promised to plant millions of trees to boost England’s nature.Nature minister Mary Creagh told the Guardian: “A previous Labour government had this great vision of garden cities post world war two and given our promises on tree planting, we thought, how can we create these forest cities which basically bring nature closer to people, green jobs closer to these new communities and help us tackle climate change?”The chancellor, Rachel Reeves, has announced investment into the “Ox-Cam corridor” and hopes to link the cities to create “Europe’s Silicon Valley”. The government sees it as essential for the UK’s economic growth, and says it could add up to £78bn to the economy by 2035. The government says it will build new towns and rail links between the two.At the same time, a new national forest will be built so those who live and work in the area have green spaces to enjoy, and to create high-quality nature to complement the urban areas.Creagh added that this announcement would be part of Keir Starmer’s Cop30 offering. She said: “The prime minister is attending the world leaders’ Cop meeting, this is a forest Cop in the Amazon and we are showing as a country we are stepping up.”She added that the model will show that the government and developers can “use trees to essentially build communities and provide beautiful housing and beautiful locations for people, where people want to live and builders want to build.”The homes in the Oxford-Cambridge corridor would be a 10-minute walk from the forest, she said: “It’s about creating places and spaces where generations of people are going to build a home, make their families, they’re lovely for people to live in and where nature can thrive.”Another national forest will be planted in the north of England, with a competition to decide the location to be launched early next year as part of a commitment to allocate more than £1bn this parliament to tree planting and support to the forestry sector. In March, the government announced the Western Forest, which was the first new national forest in three decades and is planned to stretch from the Cotswolds to the Mendips.All departments have been asked to link their policies to the chancellor’s “economic growth mission”, and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has said that planting trees creates growth because meeting tree planting targets across Britain could result in over 14,000 jobs being created and supported. Defra also said it will explore a woodland carbon purchase fund, offering upfront payments to landowners to plant carbon-rich woodlands.skip past newsletter promotionThe planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essentialPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionThe environment secretary, Emma Reynolds, said: “Our woodlands are vital for regulating our climate, supporting wildlife, and increasing access to nature for us all.“We are delivering on our manifesto commitment with three new national forests: planting is under way in the West Country, a second will be between Oxford and Cambridge and we will launch a competition for a third next year.”More details on the government’s biodiversity measures are expected in the rewritten environmental improvement plan, which is expected to be published soon. This will set out how ministers plan to meet the legally binding nature targets set out in the 2021 Environment Act.

Forests
Government
Nature

Scientific consortium hasn’t given up on giant telescope in Hawaii despite protests, increased costs

Construction on the Thirty Meter Telescope stalled at a different site on Mauna Kea in 2019 amid protests. Opponents said the land is sacred to Native Hawaiians.

Despite some daunting setbacks, executives with the Thirty Meter Telescope aren’t giving up on their plans to build it on Mauna Kea, and are investigating the possibility the observatory could be constructed on a site where an old telescope was decommissioned and torn down.Gov. Josh Green and the entire Hawaii congressional delegation signed a letter last month promising to work with state officials to establish a permitting process for construction on the sites of decommissioned telescopes on Mauna Kea.That letter to the chair and co-chair of the board of directors of the Thirty Meter Telescope International Observatory acknowledges “your commitment to addressing the Hawaii community’s request for a possible relocation to a disturbed site” on the mountain.Construction of the telescope near the summit of Mauna Kea stalled in 2019 as protests erupted on the mountain, attracting thousands of project opponents from across the state. Those protests became a powerful rallying point for Hawaiians, including some who consider the mountain to be sacred land.Protesters opposed to the construction of the Thirty Meter Telescope gather outside the Hawaii Legislature in Honolulu, April 21, 2015. (AP Photo/Cathy Bussewitz, File)APThe protests ended with the onset of the pandemic in 2020, and construction has remained in limbo ever since. Years of delays caused the total estimated cost of the TMT project to grow to $3 billion, according to TMT Project Manager Fengchuan Liu, and TMT now has “a pretty big funding gap.”The funding shortfall for TMT at this point is about $1 billion, he said, but that could change depending on when construction would begin.Money and other challengesThe National Science Foundation announced earlier this year it had opted to fund a different large telescope project in Chile, a decision that Liu called “a major challenge.” But TMT planners are working on a solution to that problem.TMT backers have approached Congress for funding via the NSF, and Liu said in an interview Monday the Senate draft of the 2026 federal budget includes language explicitly supportive of funding for TMT as well as the Extremely Large Telescope being built in Chile.The House draft supports the development of large telescopes, but does not mention TMT specifically.“We’re working through that, we have a lot of support from the Hawaii congressional delegation, we very much appreciate it, and the governor as well, but it’s hard to predict in these days how the congressional appropriation process will work out,” Liu said.U.S. Rep. Jill Tokuda, who represents rural Oahu and the neighbor islands, said in an interview Monday that she and other lawmakers plan to send a bipartisan letter to leadership of the House Appropriations Committee to ask for an amendment to the House draft of the budget bill to include language similar to the Senate version.She said she believes the letter signed by Green and the Hawaii congressional delegation was intended to demonstrate a unified position in support of TMT.Tokuda acknowledged some TMT critics continue to oppose the project, and said finding a balance between culture and the advancement of science “will take courage — community and political courage as well. This is something that can be a huge benefit to Hawaii island, to Native Hawaiians, to many.”Green said in the letter that “we look forward to working with TIO and the broader community to honor the shared responsibility for stewardship of Maunakea and the success of this project.”Makana McClellan, director of communications for Green, said the governor “will stand on his letter,” and declined further comment.Sen. Brian Schatz also said through a spokesman that he would not make any further comment, and Sen. Mazie Hirono and Rep. Ed Case did not respond to requests for comment Monday.Pua Case, who describes herself as a protector of Mauna Kea, said the letter is another example of political leaders disregarding TMT’s opponents.She said they have been collecting signatures of people opposed to construction on Mauna Kea for more than a decade, and now have nearly 500,000 signatures.That petition demonstrates the opponents of the project “are more than some Hawaiians and our allies,” she said. “We are many, many more than that, and we must safeguard our sacred lands and Mauna Kea and our Hawaii.”“Throughout the years, Native Hawaiians, communities throughout Hawaii and around the world have stood, sacrificed and worked together to safeguard our sacred lands including Mauna Kea and our Hawaii,” she said. “We have remained unified for a mauna that brought us together in ways that we never thought possible.”The Thirty Meter Telescope has been in the planning stages for years and has a state conservation district use permit authorizing the project to move forward, but opponents have filed challenges in an attempt to invalidate it.What ‘disturbed’ site?The idea that new facilities could be built on the site of a decommissioned telescope on Mauna Kea was included in Act 255, which state legislators passed in 2022. That law also established the Mauna Kea Stewardship and Oversight Authority as the sole authority for the management of lands on Mauna Kea.The law prioritized “the reuse of footprints of observatories that are scheduled for decommissioning, or have been decommissioned, as sites for facilities or improvements over the use of undeveloped lands for such purposes.”The Caltech Submillimeter Observatory and the University of Hawaii Hilo Hoku Kea Observatory have been decommissioned and removed from Mauna Kea, but nothing else has been built on the sites where those telescopes once stood.Green promised in the letter that his administration will work with the Mauna Kea oversight authority and the university “to establish a clear and transparent procedure for obtaining the necessary permits associated with a decommissioned site.”Longtime TMT opponent E. Kalani Flores said there are no decommissioned telescope sites on Mauna Kea large enough to accommodate the Thirty Meter Telescope.“The size and scope of the TMT is so huge and massive that it wouldn’t even fit on that site,” he said of the Caltech telescope site. “The question is, what disturbed site is there?”Flores also noted the use of NSF funding for the TMT project would trigger a requirement for a federal environmental impact statement and a cultural consultation, “so we’re talking about years away from it ever happening.”“What we’re seeing now is it appears that the governor and the congressional members are trying to make decisions excluding any input from Native Hawaiians in particular, and we have concerns in that regard, of course,” he said.___This story was originally published by Honolulu Civil Beat and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.If you purchase a product or register for an account through a link on our site, we may receive compensation. By using this site, you consent to our User Agreement and agree that your clicks, interactions, and personal information may be collected, recorded, and/or stored by us and social media and other third-party partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

Conservation
Culture
Mountains

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.