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

William follows in mother Diana's footsteps with Rio statue photo

The Prince of Wales posed beneath the Christ the Redeemer statue 34 years after his mother did.

William follows in mother Diana's footsteps with statue photoDaniela Relph,Royal correspondent, Rio de Janeiro and Hafsa KhalilPA MediaThe Prince of Wales has followed in his mother's footsteps with a visit to the Christ the Redeemer statue in Rio de Janeiro.Prince William stood in the same spot that Diana, Princess of Wales, was photographed in 34 years ago.He is on the third day of his five-day visit to Brazil, where he will be presenting the Earthshot Prize, the annual award from the charity he set up.The star-studded event will be held in Rio's Museum of Tomorrow on Wednesday evening, where Kylie Minogue and Shawn Mendes will perform as five projects win £1m.Associated PressPrincess Diana pictured in front of the Christ the Redeemer statue in 1991The prince is also scheduled to give a speech at COP30, the UN's annual climate meeting.On a picture perfect day, the future king stood alone in a moment of reflection as he took in the views of Rio de Janeiro from the top of Mount Corcovado where Christ the Redeemer stands.The iconic and imposing statue is one of the largest Art Deco sculptures in the world, standing at 30 metres tall and reaching 28 metres wide with its outstretched arms.It has become a symbol of hope and resilience and is said to protect the people of Rio. Princess Diana posed in the same spot in April 1991 during her six-day tour of Brazil with the now King Charles III.During Prince William's walkabouts in Rio, dozens of people spoke to him about his late mother, who died in August 1997. "The prince has loved meeting so many people from across Rio over the last few days," said a spokesperson for the prince. "He's been incredibly struck by the number of people who fondly remember his mother's visit to this beautiful city."At Christ the Redeemer, Prince William also had some time away from the cameras in the chapel that sits beneath the statue.Security has been high throughout his trip.Public access to the statue was temporarily suspended to allow him to visit the site and meet the 15 Earthshot Prize finalists ahead of the evening's awards ceremony.ReutersThe Prince of Wales spoke to the Earthshot Prize finalists before Wednesday evening's ceremonyThe shortlist this year includes the city of Guangzhou in China and its electric public transport network, Lagos Fashion Week in Nigeria, nominated for its work reshaping the fashion industry, and Barbados for its environmental leadership.The prize annually awards a £1m grant in five different categories to projects that aim to repair the world's climate.UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer will join the prince for the ceremony before they both head to Belem in the Amazon rainforest for COP30, where world leaders will discuss how to limit and pepare for further climate change.Prince William's first day in Brazil involved football in the Maracana Stadium and barefoot beach volleyball on Copacabana.On Tuesday, focus shifted to the environment - his reason for visiting the country.The prince criticised criminals for their involvment in the deforestation of the Amazon rainforest during a speech at the United for Wildlife conference.He also travelled to the small island of Paqueta, where he met locals, learnt about mangrove conservation and planted tree saplings.

Democrats Win Big Over GOP Incumbents in 2 Statewide Georgia Utility Regulator Races

Democrats have won blowout victories in two races for the Georgia Public Service Commission

ATLANTA (AP) — Two Democrats romped to wins over Republican incumbents in elections to the Georgia Public Service Commission on Tuesday, delivering the largest statewide margins of victory by Democrats in more than 20 years.Wins by Democrats Peter Hubbard and Alicia Johnson over Republicans Fitz Johnson and Tim Echols are the first time Democrats have won statewide elections to a state-level office in Georgia since 2006. The victories could juice Democratic fundraising and enthusiasm next year, when Georgia’s ballot will be topped by Democratic U.S. Sen. Jon Ossoff’s reelection bid and an open governor’s race.Both Hubbard and Johnson won nearly 63% of the vote in complete but unofficial results compiled by the Georgia Secretary of State. Results aren't official until certified, and turnout was only 30% of last year's presidential election. But such large victories in a swing state where Democrats have been able to eke out only the narrowest wins suggest discontent over high electricity bills could be a potent political issue nationwide.“The people of Georgia came out very strong and said, ’You know what? We’re not putting up with it no more,’” Democratic Party of Georgia Chair Charlie Bailey said. “We’re ready to turn the page on this 22 years of Republican rule in our state that has made the American dream less attainable now than it was 22 years ago.”Georgia wasn't the only state where electricity prices are a political issue this year. They were debated in governor’s races in New Jersey and Virginia. Nationwide, electric prices for residential consumers went up 5.2% from July 2024 to July 2025, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.“I think that we decisively won this election, flipped two seats to the Democrats on this all-Republican Public Service Commission because they were not centering the people in their decision making,” Hubbard told The Associated Press, saying commissioners have been “rubber-stamping” the plans of Georgia Power Co., the state’s only privately owned utility.Georgia's Public Service Commission had been made up of five Republicans, and a three-member GOP majority will remain after Hubbard and Alicia Johnson take office in January.“Georgia Power has always worked constructively with the elected members of the Georgia Public Service Commission, and we will continue to do so,” said Matthew Kent, a company spokesperson.Alicia Johnson will become the first Black woman elected to a partisan office statewide in Georgia. Multiple Black women have won nonpartisan elections to statewide courts after being appointed by governors. Environmental groups backed Democrats Environmental groups led by Georgia Conservation Voters spent more than $3 million to elect Hubbard, a green energy advocate and Johnson, a health care consultant, because they see the current commission as too friendly to utility plans to keep burning climate-changing fossil fuels to generate power.Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp and other Republicans pledged to spend millions of their own, urging Republicans to reject green energy and vote on party loyalty. The GOP sees Tuesday’s results as a fluke, driven by unusual off-year elections following a court case that took place as elections in Atlanta and other cities drew Democrats to the polls.“Voters have chose a different direction in this election, but I'm certain the underlying policies offered by the Democrats don't reflect the preferences of the majority of Georgians,” said Fitz Johnson, who was appointed to the commission in 2021 by Kemp. Hubbard must run for reelection in 2026 and Fitz Johnson pledged to challenge him next year.Hubbard pledged aggressive action to cut rates in the next year.“I intend to ask hard questions of Georgia Power Co. about why they’re constantly pushing what is lucrative for their shareholders,” Hubbard said. Focus on costs yields Democratic blowout Echols said Democrats were effective in appealing to voters unhappy with bill increases from Georgia Power, which serves 2.3 million customers. The unit of Atlanta-based Southern Co. has raised bills six times in recent years because of higher natural gas costs and construction projects, including two new nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle near Augusta. A typical Georgia Power residential customer now pays more than $175 a month, including taxes.“The Democrats, really, I think, did a good job focusing everything on that power bill,” Echols, who had served on the commission since 2011, said in an election-night webcast.Republicans touted a three-year freeze in base rates they enacted in July. They tried to flip the cost argument, claiming Democrats would try to shutter natural gas plants, drive up power bills with environmental mandates and unfairly subsidize poorer customers.Ed McElveen of Stone Mountain, said he backed Republican incumbents. “I wanted somebody who knows what they’re doing,” McElveen said.But even some voters who aren't Georgia Power customers voted Tuesday to express their discontent.“I’ve heard a lot of bad things about Georgia Power,” said Angela Ford, also of Stone Mountain. She gets her electricity from a cooperative.The breadth of the Republican defeat was stunning. Turnout lagged in key Republican areas during early voting. GOP hopes for a comeback grew as Election Day turnout soared, but Democrats scored a blowout win among those who voted Tuesday as well. They made deep inroads into Republican territories, for example, winning the Augusta suburb of Columbia County, which Trump carried 62% to 37% last year.Associated Press writer Charlotte Kramon contributed to this report.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Oct. 2025

What Is ARFID? Doctors Explain Why the Eating Disorder’s Rates Are Rising

Avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder, or ARFID, can cause malnutrition and weight loss in children and adults even when body image is not a factor

Stella was eight years old when she stopped eating solid foods. She went from being a “foodie” to strictly consuming liquids, says Briana, Stella’s mother. That diet soon became problematic for Stella, too: later, she removed chunks from her soup and struggled to drink smoothies that contained small seeds. She grew so afraid of swallowing that she’d spit out her saliva. “She said she had a fear of choking,” Briana says. (The last names of Stella and Briana have been withheld for privacy.)In less than a month, Stella became so tired and malnourished that her parents took her to the hospital. Doctors put her on a feeding tube, and they were concerned that the rapid weight loss for her age might cause heart issues. Within 24 hours of being hospitalized, a psychologist diagnosed Stella with avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder, or ARFID, a serious eating disorder that’s become steadily more prevalent globally in recent years. Health care providers and psychologists are now trying to untangle ARFID’s causes, signs and disconcerting rise.Clinicians emphasize that ARFID is much more than a dislike of certain foods. It’s developmentally normal for many kids to go through a picky eating phase between ages two and six. But ARFID presents as a food avoidance so persistent and pervasive that it can cause adults to drop below the minimum health body mass index, or BMI (a hotly debated measurement that links a person’s weight to their height), or to lose so much weight that they experience symptoms of malnutrition, such as vitamin deficiencies, irregular menstrual cycles, low testosterone, hair loss, muscle loss and a constant feeling of being cold. In kids, drastic weight loss from ARFID can cause children to fall off standard U.S. growth charts for healthy development. Developmental issues linked to the loss in weight and calories often spur doctors to recommend supplemental nutritional intake.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.“We’re not just trying to treat kids who don’t like broccoli. It’s the kid who is malnourished as a result of their food choices,” says James Lock, a psychiatry professor and director of the Child and Adolescent Eating Disorder Program at the Stanford University School of Medicine.An Increasingly Recognized DisorderARFID was formally recognized as a feeding and eating disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders in 2013. That enabled clinicians to put a name to a condition that had been around but had gone undetected for some time.“Probably there were people who had this syndrome, but they didn’t really talk about it because there’s a stigma around it,” says Jennifer Thomas, co-director of the Eating Disorders Clinical and Research Program at Massachusetts General Hospital, who has treated people with ARFID.Wider recognition of the condition is partly driving the recent increase in cases. Real-world data on ARFID cases are lacking, but some studies have reported a global prevalence ranging from 0.35 to 3 percent across all age groups. Certain countries and regions report much higher numbers: a recent study in the Netherlands, for example, found that among 2,862 children aged 10, 6.4 percent had ARFID. The eating disorder clinic that provided specialized care to Stella after she was hospitalized says it treated more than 1,000 people in the U.S. with ARFID in 2024—a 144 percent jump from 2023.“I think that’s one of the things that has made ARFID a challenging eating disorder [to diagnose]—because it is a lot of different things.” —Jessie Menzel, clinical psychologistAnd the National Alliance for Eating Disorders has found that ARFID now accounts for up to 15 percent of all new eating disorder cases. People can experience ARFID at any age, although recently diagnosed cases have mostly been in children and teens. The average age of diagnosis is 11 years old, and 20 to 30 percent of cases are in boys—a higher percentage than other eating disorders, according to the alliance.Signs and SymptomsUnlike other eating disorders such as anorexia nervosa and bulimia, ARFID doesn’t appear to be associated with body image. The problem—and seeming cause—is the food itself and the emotional and physiological response toward it.People with ARFID generally fall into one or several of three categories. According to one study of adults with ARFID, 80 percent of respondents said they were uninterested in eating, 55 percent said they stay away from many foods because of sensory issues, and 31 percent said they avoid food because they are afraid of adverse consequences such as choking or vomiting. About two thirds of the participants were in more than one of these categories.“I think that’s one of the things that has made ARFID a challenging eating disorder [to diagnose]—because it is a lot of different things,” says Jessie Menzel, a clinical psychologist who treats the condition and other eating disorders.There are some common signs that signal ARFID, however. In addition to significant weight loss and signs of malnutrition, ARFID’s physical symptoms include gastrointestinal issues, low body temperature and the growth of a type of soft, fine body hair called lanugo that is typically not present after infancy. Behavioral changes include a lack of appetite, difficulty paying attention, food texture avoidance, extreme selective eating and a fear of vomiting or choking.Although ARFID is classified as an eating disorder, it has a lot of overlap with mental health conditions. A 2022 metastudy found that among people diagnosed with ARFID, up to 72 percent had an anxiety disorder. Studies also suggest the uptick in ARFID cases may be tied to the overall increase in mental health conditions diagnosed in kids. ARFID is particularly pronounced in those who have an anxiety disorder, Thomas says. Her team’s studies have found that about 30 to 40 percent of individuals with ARFID have a co-occurring anxiety disorder in their lifetime. “There are key similarities between ARFID and anxiety disorders,” although they are clinically distinct conditions, Thomas says. “Patients [with ARFID] themselves often describe feeling intense anxiety around food.”Because ARFID and anxiety can be so closely intertwined, it can be difficult to identify one from the other. “Often families will tell us it’s hard to get an [ARFID] diagnosis,” says Doreen Marshall, chief executive officer of the National Eating Disorders Association.ARFID is typically flagged when a child veers from growth curves—charts recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics to assess a child’s weight and height for their age. “If your lack of interest [in food] has led to your being a couple of standard deviations off your growth curve and you’re not going to hit puberty or grow, that’s a problem,” Lock says.Pinpointing signs of ARFID is trickier when a child has nutritional deficits but is of average or higher body weight. Such discrepancies make it “important that pediatricians listen to parents,” Marshall says. Health care providers should ask parents to describe what they see their child eating or avoiding, she says.ARFID in the BrainScientists don’t fully understand what causes ARFID, although they believe that it’s driven by a combination of genetic, environmental and neurobiological factors. Thomas is currently investigating the latter.In a study published in JAMA Network Open in February, Thomas and her team presented 110 participants with photographs of food, household objects and blurred images and observed their brain activity using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). The results revealed that the three different ARFID categories correspond to activation of different brain regions. When shown food images, those who fell into the fear-related ARFID category (participants who had a fear of choking, for example) showed hyperactivation of the amygdala, the brain’s fear center. Participants with ARFID who were uninterested in food had lower activation of the hypothalamus, the brain’s appetite-regulation region. People diagnosed with the sensory form of ARFID showed hyperactivation of the brain’s sensory areas, such as the somatosensory cortex or the supplementary motor cortex.“What we found is that there might be different neural circuitry associated with each of the three ARFID presentations,” Thomas says. Results from fMRI have known limitations involving reliability and reproducibility, however. Thomas says that these initial findings need to be replicated to understand if the differences in brain activity are a cause or link to ARFID types; her team is currently collecting data from adults with ARFID for a second study. In a separate 2023 study, her team found that people who lack interest in food experienced a loss of pleasure in a lot of things—a condition known as anhedonia—and that depression partly contributed. “Folks who have that lack-of-interest [version of] ARFID don’t look forward to things in general, not just food,” she says.Understanding the neurological activity involved in ARFID may help clinicians develop more targeted treatments. For now, practitioners rely largely on a treatment known as cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), which has shown some success. A 2020 study co-authored by Thomas found that, post-CBT, 70 percent of those treated no longer met the criteria for ARFID. Another study published by Thomas and her colleagues in 2021 in the Journal of Behavioral and Cognitive Therapy found similar results.“With true ARFID, we don’t see a lot of spontaneous remission,” Thomas says. “Recovering from ARFID takes hard work, either at home, making a concerted effort to try new foods, or with a supportive treatment provider.”Most treatments for younger kids rely on parents to manage their child’s eating habits. After a month at the hospital, doctors sent Stella home, and her parents were advised not to cater to Stella’s limited palate. At home, the whole family, including Stella, ate the same meals. When they ate at restaurants, Stella didn’t have to eat a big meal, but she did have to take a few bites of something solid. Within a few months, Stella’s regular eating habits returned, and her ARFID disappeared.Treatments based on controlling eating habits can only go so far, however. They are less effective for people with the types of ARFID that are associated with higher sensitivity to or a lack of interest in food. “I think that’s where it’s so important to understand what’s happening physiologically or neurobiologically,” Menzel says. “That’s going to guide us toward more effective treatments.”If you or someone you know is struggling with an eating disorder, you can contact the National Association of Anorexia Nervosa and Associated Disorders helpline by calling (888) 375-7767. For crisis situations, you can text “NEDA” to 741741 to connect to a trained volunteer at Crisis Text Line.

Opinion: Make Oregon a magnet for opportunity

The warning signs of an economy under pressure are all around, from mass layoffs to companies moving out of state, writes Karla S. Chambers, co-founder and co-owner of Stahlbush Island Farms. The state must focus on how to reduce barriers, grow the economy and help businesses stay competitive.

Karla S. ChambersFor The Oregonian/OregonLiveChambers is co-founder and co-owner of Stahlbush Island Farms, Inc. in Corvallis. She also served on the Federal Reserve Boards of San Francisco and Portland and serves on the Oregon State University Board of Trustees. Oregon’s job market is flashing red warning lights – and the numbers tell a troubling story. Mass layoff filings now rival or exceed levels seen during the 2008–2009 housing crash, as The Oregonian/OregonLive recently reported, (“Oregon mass layoffs approach Great Recession levels,” Sept. 14.) State data show nearly 25,000 net job losses over the past year, with layoffs cutting deep into manufacturing and technology. Intel, Nike, ESS Tech, Fred Meyer, Roseburg Forest Products and JELD-WEN are among major employers announcing reductions. In ESS Tech’s case, the company closed altogether. Job losses aren’t the only concern. The Tax Foundation ranked Oregon 35th in the nation for tax competitiveness, falling from 33rd last year. Oregon ranks near last in manufacturing growth according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and seventh nationally for regulatory burden, according to George Mason University. Oregon’s business friendliness ranks 47th, according to CNBC, and we’re 43rd for cost of doing business.Meanwhile, the main sectors adding jobs are health care and government — and even hospitals report operating losses under rising costs and staffing mandates. When employment depends on government and health care instead of private-sector innovation, the warning lights are flashing. Oregon depends on personal income taxes for 81% of the general fund. To fund government and support schools, health care, environmental stewardship and the services we all value, the state needs a stable, growing private sector. But Oregon is making it harder for private businesses to flourish. Business has survived COVID-19, a spike in inflation, higher interest rates and tariffs. State and local governments are trying to solve their rising costs by passing on higher taxes, fees, fines, annual permit costs – to business – all while making compliance more complicated. We are watching many businesses leave the state; expand their operations elsewhere; reduce staff or close. Locally, our water bill has eight additional taxes and fees that have nothing to do with water, including charges for street maintenance, transit, urban forestry and sidewalk maintenance. Meeting payroll means ensuring compliance with new minimum wage rates, new overtime rules, new taxes based on payroll and family-leave program taxes. The state’s transportation bill has new gas taxes, vehicle registration fees, mileage charges and more. It is not any one cost but the total burden that is making Oregon uncompetitive. Neighboring states continue to grow jobs and attract employers – including those that used to call Oregon home. Dutch Bros’ headquarters has relocated to Arizona, a state which recently crowed about the billions in new investment anticipated from overseas companies and expansions of existing employers.Oregon, by contrast, is watching the Oregon forest products industry expand billions into North and South Carolina; our agricultural firms expand into Idaho; food processing plants like Pacific Foods closing its Tualatin facility and moving manufacturing out-of-state; and a record number of job losses in high tech and manufacturing. When we lose a manufacturing business, we lose family-wage jobs, innovation and the broad economic impact. These companies have many employees, vendors and customers and add value to basic commodities, creating new products through innovation.Oregon can change course, but it will take courage and accountability. We must:Reduce regulatory burdens that discourage investment. That means taking a sharper look at the collective fees and taxes the state puts on businesses and reducing them. Streamline state government to improve efficiency: For example, our food processing company must go through the industry’s most rigorous food safety audits, which take three or four days compared to cursory one-day audits conducted by state agencies. The state can reduce the time and expense for businesses by accepting the certification provided by these higher-intensity audits rather than insisting on an Oregon-specific one. Other industries have similar examples of redundant requirements. Reignite innovation by linking business, universities, and community colleges in public-private partnerships. Between Silicon Valley and Seattle lies a natural home for advanced manufacturing and sustainable technology. The University of Oregon and Oregon State University help create many new business start-ups. Our culture of innovation is strong, however we do not retain these new businesses due to our costly business policies. Fix our business climate, put Business Oregon into a public/private partnership and reinvigorate recruitment.We have everything we need to thrive — forests, farmland, clean water, renewable energy, world-class universities and a skilled workforce. What we lack is leadership that rewards productivity and entrepreneurship rather than layering on cost and complexity. Oregonians know how to innovate – Corvallis once had the highest patent rates per capita, powered by research and private collaboration. That same spirit can rebuild our economy, if we summon the will to lead again. Where will our children and grandchildren build their futures? If we want them to stay in Oregon, we must make this state a magnet for opportunity — not regulation.Share your opinion Submit your essay of 600-700 words on a highly topical issue or a theme of particular relevance to the Pacific Northwest, Oregon and the Portland area to commentary@oregonian.com. No attachments, please. Please include your email and phone number for verification. 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.

New Study Links Wildfire Smoke to Premature Births

By I. Edwards HealthDay ReporterWEDNESDAY, Nov. 5, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Wildfire smoke may do more than harm the lungs.New research shows it...

WEDNESDAY, Nov. 5, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Wildfire smoke may do more than harm the lungs.New research shows it could also raise the risk of premature birth.A large study from the University of Washington found that pregnant people exposed to wildfire smoke were more likely to deliver early.The findings, published Nov. 3 in The Lancet Planetary Health, are based on more than 20,000 births across the United States between 2006 and 2020.About 10% of babies in the U.S. are born early, which can lead to lifelong health problems. While air pollution has already been linked to preterm birth, this is one of the biggest studies so far to look specifically at wildfire smoke as a contributor, researchers said.“Preventing preterm birth really pays off with lasting benefits for future health,” said lead author Allison Sherris, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Washington in Seattle.“It’s also something of a mystery. We don’t always understand why babies are born preterm, but we know that air pollution contributes to preterm births, and it makes sense that wildfire smoke would as well," she added in a news release. "This study underscores that wildfire smoke is inseparable from maternal and infant health.”Researchers measured how often pregnant people were exposed to wildfire-related fine particle pollution, known as PM2.5, and how much they were exposed.The risk of preterm birth was higher when exposure happened in the second trimester, especially around week 21. Later in pregnancy, the biggest risk came from high levels of wildfire smoke, above 10 micrograms per cubic meter. The strongest link was seen in the Western U.S., where wildfire smoke has become more frequent and intense. “The second trimester is a period of pregnancy with the richest and most intense growth of the placenta, which itself is such an important part of fetal health, growth and development,” said co-author Dr. Catherine Karr, a professor of pediatrics and environmental health."So it may be that the wildfire smoke particles are really interfering with placental health," Karr added in a news release. "Some of them are so tiny that after inhalation they can actually get into the bloodstream and get delivered directly into the placenta or fetus.”Researchers say more work is needed to understand exactly how wildfire smoke affects pregnancy, but the evidence is now strong enough to take action for pregnant people."There’s an opportunity to work with clinicians to provide tools for pregnant people to protect themselves during smoke events," Sherris said. "Public health agencies’ messaging about wildfire smoke could also be tailored to pregnant people and highlight them as a vulnerable group."SOURCE: University of Washington, news release, Nov. 3, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

A Decade After Brazil’s Deadly Dam Collapse, Indigenous Peoples Demand Justice on the Eve of COP30

Ten years after Brazil’s worst environmental disaster, the Indigenous Krenak people are still mourning what they call “the death of the river.”

BOGOTA, Colombia (AP) — A week before what the Indigenous Krenak people now call “the death of the river,” they say they could feel it coming. The birds stopped singing, the air grew heavy, and an unusual silence settled over their village in Minas Gerais, a southeastern Brazilian state where forested hills give way to the winding Doce River.Then, on Nov. 5, 2015, the mud came.A mining dam owned by Samarco — a joint venture between Brazilian company Vale and Anglo-Australian giant BHP Billiton — burst upstream near the town of Mariana, unleashing a torrent of toxic iron ore waste. It buried the nearby community of Bento Rodrigues and swept down the Doce River valley, killing 19 people and contaminating waterways for nearly 600 kilometers (370 miles) before reaching the Atlantic Ocean.For the Krenak people, who once relied on the river for food, rituals, and daily life, the damage was not just environmental but spiritual. “It was the saddest day for my people,” said Shirley Djukurnã Krenak, an Indigenous leader whose community has lived for generations along the Doce River. “We felt the death of the river before it arrived.”The Mariana disaster poured an estimated 40 million tons of mining waste into the Doce basin, devastating one of Brazil’s most ancient river systems, whose valley has shaped the landscape of Minas Gerais for millions of years. Ten years later, reconstruction and reparations have dragged on through legal disputes, and the river remains contaminated by heavy metals. Local communities say little has changed, even as Brazil strives to define itself as a leader of global climate policy while hosting the United Nation’s COP30 climate summit — an event some are skeptical will bring change.“For us, the fight isn’t about speeches at COP,” Krenak said. “It’s about survival.” A test for Brazil’s climate credibility Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva now hopes to cement his reputation as a global environmental leader at COP30 in Belem, at the heart of the Amazon. Yet the unresolved legacy of Mariana and other recent policy moves reveal the distance between Brazil’s climate discourse and reality, according to Maurício Guetta, legal policy director at the advocacy group Avaaz.“It’s contradictory for a country that wants to lead on climate to keep approving laws that reduce protection for nature and Indigenous rights,” he said, adding that Indigenous territories are among the world’s most effective barriers against deforestation.Indigenous congresswoman Célia Xakriabá, who represents Minas Gerais, said the tragedy remains “a crime still in progress.”“The Doce River is still sick. The fish are contaminated, the people are ill, and children still ask when the river will be healed,” she said. “You can’t bring back 19 lives, and you can’t bring back a healthy river.”Xakriabá said the lack of justice for Mariana victims undermines Brazil’s credibility ahead of the summit.“It’s hard to talk about climate leadership when the state where this crime happened hasn’t even recovered,” she said. “True environmental policy starts with justice for those living the consequences.”After the 2015 collapse, the state of Minas Gerais weakened its environmental licensing laws — a move Guetta said directly contributed to the Brumadinho dam disaster in 2019, which killed 270 people.In October 2024, Brazil’s government and the states of Minas Gerais and Espirito Santo signed a 132 billion-reais ($23 billion) settlement with Samarco, the mine’s operator, and its owners, Vale and BHP, to fund social and environmental repairs. The record deal which will bring the total payment to 170 billion-reais ($30 billion) includes aid for affected communities, but critics say deeper flaws in Brazil’s environmental governance remain.“The Mariana disaster showed how fragile Brazil’s system of environmental control really is,” Guetta said. “Instead of learning from it, we’ve seen a process of deregulation.”Brazil’s Congress approved a law in 2023, which restricts Indigenous land claims, and this year passed what activists call the “devastation bill,” which would relax environmental licensing nationwide. Environmentalists warn both threaten to undermine the country’s own climate goals under the Paris Agreement, the 2015 global pact to curb greenhouse gas emissions and limit global warming. Now, Brazil’s Congress is also considering a national bill that would further loosen oversight of mining and industrial projects and “practically dismantle Brazil’s environmental licensing system,” Guetta said.He added that Brazil’s environmental agencies remain underfunded and understaffed, even as mining and agribusiness expand deeper into fragile ecosystems. Brazil's environment ministry did not respond to a request for comment. Skepticism over ‘Indigenous COP’ Krenak told The Associated Press that her community will not be attending COP30. She sees the climate summit as distant from the realities faced by Indigenous peoples and full of “greenwashing” and false promises. “If all the previous COPs had worked, we wouldn’t still be talking about crimes like this,” she said.Instead, she said, true climate action begins with protecting rivers and forests — and recognizing Indigenous territories. Anthropologist Ana Magdalena Hurtado, who has spent decades working with Indigenous communities in South America, said she shares that concern.“My worry is, this all looks very pretty, but the people who will walk away feeling wonderful are the urban academics and policymakers — not those living in remote territories,” said Hurtado, a professor of anthropology and global health at Arizona State University.She said dedicating space to Indigenous voices at COP30 is a welcome step, but warned that inclusion without follow-up can do more harm than good.As COP30 kicks off, many Indigenous leaders share that skepticism but remain hopeful.“I still believe change is possible," Krenak said. "That one day, our children will be able to drink a glass of water without fear of dying.”Associated Press writer Melina Walling contributed to this report from Chicago. 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

‘Green desert’: the farmers winning a battle with Brazil’s wood-pulp giant

Eucalyptus production is dominated by large multinationals that convert farmland and forest into monoculture plantationsRazor-straight rows of eucalyptus clones flank the Baixa Verde settlement in north-eastern Brazil. The genetically identical trees are in marked contrast to the patches of wild Atlantic forest – one of the most biologically diverse ecosystems on Earth – that remain scattered across the region.Surrounded by nearly 100,000 hectares (247,000 acres) of eucalyptus plantations, Baixa Verde is a rare example of a local victory over a multinational in Brazil. The rural settlement owes its existence to nearly two decades of legal battles over land rights – but the fight is not over yet. Continue reading...

Razor-straight rows of eucalyptus clones flank the Baixa Verde settlement in north-eastern Brazil. The genetically identical trees are in marked contrast to the patches of wild Atlantic forest – one of the most biologically diverse ecosystems on Earth – that remain scattered across the region.Surrounded by nearly 100,000 hectares (247,000 acres) of eucalyptus plantations, Baixa Verde is a rare example of a local victory over a multinational in Brazil. The rural settlement owes its existence to nearly two decades of legal battles over land rights – but the fight is not over yet.After fighting to retain their land, the families now face an unprecedented security crisis marked by armed clashes, arson and death threats, part of a wave of violence driven by a land dispute that has escalated since 2024.A eucalyptus plot owned by Veracel Celulose. Production typically involves converting farmland and forest into monoculture plantations. Photograph: Jhedys KannConflicts over land rights have long been an issue in the region. Obtaining property titles is commonly deemed to legitimise land grabs from traditional communities, and local people had suspected that Veracel Celulose – a pulp-production company jointly owned by the Swedish-Finnish company Stora Enso and the giant Brazilian pulp manufacturer Suzano – was planting eucalyptus trees on public land.In 2008, Ercilio Souza, one of the founders of the Baixa Verde settlement, and Juenildo Oliveira Farias visited government archives to review public documents. They found the page that proved the 1,300 hectares in dispute were owned by the government. “We always knew that it was public land,” says Souza.With the document in hand, they assembled 91 local families and joined the Landless Workers Movement (MST), a ​​political and social organisation fighting for agrarian reform. Its first action was to occupy an area of a eucalyptus plantation used by Veracel, accusing the company of using public land.Two years after the original occupation, the MST won state recognition that the company did not legally own the parcel of land planted by Veracel. “This document was a victory not just for the local land rights movement but for all the social movements of Brazil,” says Jhedys Lemos Farias, who grew up in the encampment and is now one of the leaders of the MST.Ercilio Souza on his new land, previously a eucalyptus plantation. Souza had always suspected this land to be publicly owned. Photograph: Jhedys KannAfter years of roadblocks and legal battles, the state of Bahia signed an agreement with Veracel and the MST in 2016, restoring 1,300 hectares of Veracel land to the government and giving each family a plot large enough to grow their own food. Of the 61 families remaining, 53 have moved into their new plots.“Winning a right to the land means that we now have a place to care for our youngest ones,” says Lemos Farias.Despite losing the land, a Veracel representative maintains that the company has always operated with “transparency, social and environmental responsibility” and respect for the local population. “The company has never been convicted of land grabbing and reaffirms that its production areas are legally regulated and operate with the required environmental permits.”Yet, in the years since the agreement, the families say they have experienced death threats, gunfire, burned homes, stolen produce and destroyed fields.Jhedys Lemos Farias next to a river near the Baixa Verde settlement. Local people say the river has dried up since eucalyptus production began. Photograph: Sara Van HornAccording to the MST, the conflict now centres on plots of land that remain occupied by farmers affiliated with the local union, the Federation of Rural Workers and Family Agriculture (Fetag). When it was about to lose possession of the contested land, Veracel donated 300 nearby hectares to the union – a donation confirmed by Fetag’s leadership, according to a recording of a public hearing held with Bahia’s National Agrarian Ombudsman’s Office.skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Global DispatchGet a different world view with a roundup of the best news, features and pictures, curated by our global development teamPrivacy 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 promotionThere is a lot of persecution happening around here. Our tents have been set on fire, as well as our sugarcane fieldsOver the past four years, six leaders of the MST have been placed under protective watch by Brazil’s protection programme for human rights defenders, communicators and environmentalists. The government has recommended that some of these leaders relocate, but out of loyalty to the movement and connection with their hard-won land, they have refused.Because of the death threats he has received, Souza says he has trouble sleeping at night. “I am really scared that something is going to happen to my family,” he says. “There is a lot of persecution happening around here. Our tents have been set on fire, as well as our sugarcane fields.”Marli dos Santos outside a temporary home while she waits for her lot to be vacated. She found bullet casings in the grass a few feet away. Photograph: Sara Van HornThe MST claims that eight families do not feel safe enough to cultivate their plots, which remain occupied by farmers allegedly associated with Veracel.Veracel says that over the past 15 years, it has allocated “more than 20,000 hectares to agrarian reform initiatives, whether through judicial agreements, donations to the National Institute for Colonisation and Agrarian Reform (Incra), donations, or direct sales, to resolve ongoing conflicts in the territory.”The company also says “the creation of the settlements – from design to subdivision and lot definition – was conducted entirely by the state government, without interference from the company”, and “does not comment on conflicts between social movements”.Marli dos Santos is one of the two people who still live in the old encampment. She says she has been harassed by armed men who surrounded her house and shot at the ground in front of her home. Because no one lives nearby, Santos – who lives alone – believes the gunshots were meant to intimidate her out of reclaiming her assigned plot.In August, the state of Bahia authorised the removal of Fetag farmers who remain on Baixa Verde lots – but the ruling has yet to be enforced.Fetag did not respond to a request for comment.Besides defending against threats and violence, converting lands once used for eucalyptus monoculture into food production is now the main challenge for the Baixa Verde communities. Eucalyptus production is dominated by large multinationals that, since the 1960s, have been converting farmland and forest into monoculture plantations, driven by global demand.Brazil is the world’s largest producer of eucalyptus, a fast-growing, water-intensive plant, whose pulp is exported to make cardboard and paper products. Most of the country’s eucalyptus pulp is exported to Europe, where it is used to make paper products often marketed as a renewable alternative to plastics – despite the environmental damage caused by monoculture.In Bahia, the proliferation of these farms has earned the local moniker “green desert”, due to the loss of wildlife and the severe shortage of water and land experienced by families living near eucalyptus plantations.The farm plots of the Baixa Verde settlement next to Veracel. Photograph: Jhedys KannSouza grew up in the region and remembers the river before the area was transformed by eucalyptus monoculture, promoted by Veracel. “We used to cross it in a canoe. It was full,” he says. “After Veracel arrived, it dried up.” He attributes the water scarcity to the company’s arrival in 1991.Veracel says it “adopts a mosaic management system, in which eucalyptus is cultivated in plateau areas, while valleys, springs and native vegetation are preserved. This model ensures soil protection, wildlife conservation and the maintenance of water resources.” The company also says it “conducts continuous monitoring of micro-basins in its area of operation” and “develops reforestation and forest restoration projects in areas near communities”.In the neighbouring state of Minas Gerais, the eucalyptus region of Turmalina has seen its groundwater level drop by 4.5 metres over the past 45 years, according to researchers at Minas Gerais Federal University.Vegetation under eucalyptus monoculture absorbs 26% of rainfall to restore groundwater levels – compared with a 50% level of absorption associated with native forest. Three-quarters of farming families surveyed in Minas Gerais reported their crops being affected by the scarcity.The cultivation of eucalyptus also poses an increased risk of wildfire. Plantations are so flammable that Chile ruled out eucalyptus as a viable climate solution after a series of large wildfires in its domestic plantations.Despite the environmental risks, eucalyptus plantations continue to play a significant role in the carbon market, with trees being sold as carbon credits to fossil fuel polluters to offset their emissions. Despite opposition from campaigners, in May last year, the Brazilian government passed a law excluding eucalyptus from a list of industries needing an environmental licence.

EU Agrees on New Emissions Targets Before Global Climate Summit in Brazil

The European Union has announced plans to slash carbon emissions by 90% by 2040

BRUSSELS (AP) — The European Union said Wednesday it would slash carbon emissions by 90% by 2040, in an agreement widely seen as a weakening of the 27-nation bloc's previous climate goals, after an overnight debate ahead of the U.N. climate conference in Brazil.Hungary, Slovakia and Poland voted against the agreement, despite other nations agreeing to key compromises including allowing flexibility for member states to buy carbon credits internationally to reach their emissions targets and for the EU to reassess its climate policy depending on economic performance. The agreement also allows for postponing a new carbon trading plan covering transport and heating, a central demand of Poland.Environmentalists criticized the deal for provisions that will allow the EU to buy carbon credits from less-developed countries, effectively outsourcing the bloc's obligations. “The use of offshore carbon laundering to meet this nominal target means the EU’s own commitment is much lower, and that commitment means even less with a baked-in clause to dilute the target every two years,” said Greenpeace EU climate campaigner Thomas Gelin. Jeroen Gerlag, Europe director at the nonprofit Climate Group, said that “while the EU keeps its 90% commitment on paper, in effect it’ll be offshoring some of its emission reductions – making it someone else’s problem.”The agreement was hammered out between EU climate ministers in a marathon session overnight into Wednesday morning. Before it becomes a legally-binding document, the European Parliament will vote on it and negotiate its contents with the European Council.“This is exactly the signal that Europe has to send in these times,” said Swedish climate minister Romina Pourmokhtari, who thanked Finland, Germany, Spain and the Netherlands for pushing for high emissions cuts in the debate.Wopke Hoekstra, the European Commissioner for Climate, Net-Zero and Clean Growth, said the agreement is strong compared to those of allies in the Pacific, Europe and North America, but that some compromise was necessary amid current geopolitical and economic tension.“On this continent, we will continue with climate action, but it has to be bridged, it has to be married with independence and competitiveness. Not one without the other. All three are essential,” he said.The EU executive, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, will now travel to Brazil for the Conference of Parties — known as COP30 — with a clear EU emissions agreement.“Now we have the possibility to go to Belem with leadership,” said Sara Aagesen, Spain’s climate minister.Many EU governments have shifted to the right since the Paris Agreement in 2015. Some see climate regulations as shackling the economy, while others say Europe will either make and sell renewables or be forced to buy energy or green products from countries like China.Wildfires, heat waves and floods have become more frequent across Europe, spurring calls for more climate action. But crises like Russia’s war in Ukraine, and a newly volatile relationship with the United States, have increased political and economic pressure to curtail flagship environmental policies.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Oct. 2025

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.

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.

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.