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

White House Begins Mass Firing of Federal Employees Amid Shutdown War

Russell Vought, the White House budget director, announced that the administration has begun firing federal workers en masse.Vought warned last week that “consequential” layoffs were forthcoming amid the ongoing government shutdown. On Friday, he tweeted, “The RIFs have begun,” referring to “reductions in force.”Vought, as anticipated, is now using the government shutdown to cull the federal workforce, fulfilling Trump’s recent vow to cut “vast numbers of people out,” as well as slash programs that he says Democrats “like.”An unnamed White House official told MSNBC’s Vaughn Hillyard, “We expect thousands of people to unfortunately be laid off due to the government shutdown.” CNN’s Alayna Treene reports that a White House official said that fired workers have begun receiving notices and, “It will be substantial.”Agencies poised to be affected, according to Politico, include the Departments of the Interior, Treasury, Commerce, Education, Energy, Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, and the Environmental Protection Agency.Reacting to Vought’s four-word social media announcement, the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents 820,000 government workers, shot back: “The lawsuit has been filed.” The AFL-CIO told Vought, “America’s unions will see you in court.”This story has been updated.

Russell Vought, the White House budget director, announced that the administration has begun firing federal workers en masse.Vought warned last week that “consequential” layoffs were forthcoming amid the ongoing government shutdown. On Friday, he tweeted, “The RIFs have begun,” referring to “reductions in force.”Vought, as anticipated, is now using the government shutdown to cull the federal workforce, fulfilling Trump’s recent vow to cut “vast numbers of people out,” as well as slash programs that he says Democrats “like.”An unnamed White House official told MSNBC’s Vaughn Hillyard, “We expect thousands of people to unfortunately be laid off due to the government shutdown.” CNN’s Alayna Treene reports that a White House official said that fired workers have begun receiving notices and, “It will be substantial.”Agencies poised to be affected, according to Politico, include the Departments of the Interior, Treasury, Commerce, Education, Energy, Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, and the Environmental Protection Agency.Reacting to Vought’s four-word social media announcement, the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents 820,000 government workers, shot back: “The lawsuit has been filed.” The AFL-CIO told Vought, “America’s unions will see you in court.”This story has been updated.

Under Trump, E.P.A. Explored if Abortion Pills Could Be Detected in Wastewater

Scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency found that they could develop methods to identify traces of the medication if necessary — a practice long sought by the anti-abortion movement.

Senior officials at the Environmental Protection Agency directed a team of scientists over the summer to assess whether the government could develop methods for detecting traces of abortion pills in wastewater — a practice sought by some anti-abortion activists seeking to restrict the medication now used in over 50 percent of abortions.The highly unusual request appears to have originated from a letter sent from 25 Republican members of Congress to Lee Zeldin, the E.P.A. administrator, asking the agency to investigate how the abortion drug mifepristone might be contaminating the water supply.“Are there existing E.P.A.-approved methods for detecting mifepristone and its active metabolites in water supplies?” the lawmakers asked at the end of the public letter, sent on June 18, an effort led by Senator James Lankford and Representative Josh Brecheen, both of Oklahoma. “If not, what resources are needed to develop these testing methods?”Scientists who specialize in chemical detection told the senior officials that there are currently no E.P.A.-approved methods for identifying mifepristone in wastewater — but that new methods could be developed, according to two people familiar with the events, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive information.Abortion pills have emerged as a major focus for the anti-abortion movement since the fall of Roe v. Wade, as growing numbers of women in states with abortion bans have turned to websites and underground networks that send the pills through the mail, allowing them to circumvent the laws.The widespread availability of abortion pills — which women usually take at home in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy — has inspired many anti-abortion activists to push for new approaches to curtail their use. That has included a campaign by one prominent group to raise awareness about environmental harms they say are caused when the medication and fetal remains enter the sewage system.Subscribe to The Times to read as many articles as you like.

Gavin Newsom signs law overhauling local zoning to build more housing

After weeks of waiting, California’s governor signed a bill that will allow mid-rise apartment buildings near major transit stops in California’s biggest metro areas.

In summary After weeks of waiting, California’s governor signed a bill that will allow mid-rise apartment buildings near major transit stops in California’s biggest metro areas. Ever since the Legislature narrowly passed Senate Bill 79 last month, legislation that will pave the way for more apartment buildings around major public transit stops in the state’s biggest metro areas, the California political universe has been impatiently awaiting Gov. Gavin Newsom’s signature or veto in a heated statewide game of “will he, won’t he.” Today, he did.  Newsom’s sign off on the bill means that apartment developers will soon be able to pack more homes into neighborhoods within half a mile of major rail, subway, and bus rapid transit stops, overriding local zoning restrictions and any possible objections of surrounding neighbors. Buildings immediately surrounding these transit hubs will be entitled to max out as high as nine stories, with those further out topping out at roughly four. “The world looks to California for leadership — it’s time to build modern, connected communities that fulfill California’s promise, meeting the needs of today and the next generation,” the governor wrote in a signing statement. The signature caps off a legislative year full of housing policy overhauls that even just a few years ago would have seemed unthinkable. It also reaffirms the governor’s political alignment with the “Yes In My Backyard” movement, which has been championing the cause of building more housing in the face of a statewide housing shortage for nearly a decade. This summer Newsom signed YIMBY-backed legislation to exempt most urban apartment projects from review under one of the state’s signature environmental protection laws. “Go YIMBYs,” Newsom said when signing that bill into law.  Senate Bill 79 is, indeed, a signature victory for the movement. The bill’s author, San Francisco Sen. Scott Wiener, a Democrat, introduced an earlier version of the policy in 2018 with the support of the then still relatively new political organization California YIMBY. This year’s version, which narrowly passed both the Senate and Assembly last month with few votes to spare, marks Wiener’s fourth attempt. Learn more about legislators mentioned in this story. Scott Wiener Democrat, State Senate, District 11 (San Francisco) “In California we talk a lot about where we don’t want to build homes, but rarely do we talk about where we do—until now,” said Wiener in a statement. “SB 79 unwinds decades of overly restrictive policies that have driven housing costs to astronomical levels, forcing millions of people away from jobs and transit and into long commutes from the suburbs or out of the state entirely. It has been a long road to tackling these decades-old problems, but today’s signing marks a new day for affordable housing in California.” Newsom’s signature comes as a grave disappointment for many local governments and neighborhood groups, particularly in Southern California. Last month, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass urged Newsom to veto the bill, saying that it would “erode local control, diminish community input on planning and zoning, and disproportionately impact low-resource neighborhoods.” Irate homeowner groups and state legislators raised concerns that mandating higher levels of housing density would “fundamentally reshape” suburban-style neighborhoods. The “upzoning” policy was meant to be a two-fer: Allow for much more housing construction as a way to alleviate the state’s housing shortage and its resulting affordability crisis, while also steering more residents towards cash-strapped public transportation systems.  Despite the ferocity of the opposition, the bill that Newsom signed is considerably more modest than the version introduced at the beginning of the year. After 13 separate rounds of amendments, the law will be restricted to just eight highly urbanized counties — Los Angeles, San Diego, Orange, Santa Clara, Alameda, Sacramento, San Francisco and San Mateo — and apply only to select transportation stops (train, subway, light rail and high-frequency buses routes with designated lanes). The law will also give local governments alternative means to comply with their own local programs, require a certain share of units constructed under the bill to be set aside at below-market rents and go into effect on a delayed schedule in certain lower income neighborhoods. Even in that more muted form, the law is one of most consequential changes to statewide zoning rules in modern California history.  Over the last weeks, Newsom has come under sustained pressure from both supporters and opponents. Advocates for historic preservation, tenant rights, local control and affluent neighborhood groups, along with Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton and former reality TV star Spencer Pratt, have rallied their respective audiences to inundate the governor’s office with calls and emails urging a veto. Supporters — among them national political commentators, billionaire megadonor Tom Steyer and every corner of the organized YIMBY online universe — have urged their supporters to do the opposite.  Popular interest in the outcome of the bill seemed to escape the confines typical of California legislative debate. Earlier this week, an online betting pool popped up (the odds were always good for Newsom’s signature). The topic even came up during the governor’s guest appearance on the recent livestream of the popular online gamer known as “ConnorEatsPants.”  Responding to a stream of public comments from his audience packed with incessant inquiries about the bill, the streamer prompted Newsom: “I don’t know what this is, but they’re saying you need to talk about SB 79.”

Study: Commercial Lion Farming in South Africa Could Be Harming, Not Helping, Wild Lions

As we’ve seen with tigers and other threatened species, captive lion breeding may stimulate consumer demand and put additional pressure on wild populations across African home ranges. The post Study: Commercial Lion Farming in South Africa Could Be Harming, Not Helping, Wild Lions appeared first on The Revelator.

I recently co-authored a new peer-reviewed study that has delivered another blow to South Africa’s controversial commercial captive lion industry, finding no solid evidence that breeding lions in captivity benefits wild populations and warning that it may be doing the opposite. Our study, a collaboration with researchers from Blood Lions and World Animal Protection, paints a troubling picture of an industry that has exploded over the past three decades to around 350 facilities holding nearly 8,000 lions — alongside thousands of other big cats — for exhibition and breeding, tourism experiences, “canned” or captive trophy hunting, and the trade in bones and body parts. We examined 126 scientific papers and 37 organizational reports published between 2008 and 2023, flagging three major concerns: Currently there is no proof that the commercial industry aids conservation. Captive breeding may increase demand for lion parts. Links between legal and illegal trade could be strengthened. Bottle feeding and cub petting are popular revenue streams for captive predator facilities. Cubs are separated from their mothers at a young age, forcing the females back into estrus while visitors pay to interact with the cubs. © Blood Lions, used with permission. From cub-petting selfies to walking with lions, “canned” hunts, and the (now illegal) export of lion skeletons, the commercial predator industry is big business. The industry claims that commercial lion farming relieves pressure on wild lions; our study shows that it could actually fuel the demand for lion products and open the door to increased wildlife trafficking. Can Commercial Breeding Meet Consumer Demand? While proponents of commercial wildlife utilization assert that wildlife farming offers an effective means to meet the demand for wildlife commodities and relieve pressure on wild populations, our analysis of previous work by researchers and conservationists shows that this approach may be counterproductive. Farming wildlife may, in fact, put increased pressure on wild populations by promoting demand for wildlife products. This increases the risk of wildlife poaching and laundering through existing legal channels. It has also been noted that captive wildlife stock is sometimes renewed with animals from the wild to bring in fresh genes and prevent inbreeding or to breed for specific traits, such as dark manes. Countering arguments that farming wild animals is a logical means to protect wild populations, conservationists and researchers have highlighted that such mistaken assumptions may endanger wild populations. Other species have already demonstrated that commercial farming of wild species — such as tigers for bones and other body parts, bears for bile, and Southeast Asian porcupines for meat consumption — have all put increased pressure on wild populations. Consumer demand studies that have highlighted a preference for products sourced from wild-caught animals based on perceptions of medicinal strength or meat quality. Overall these studies highlight the faulty logic inherent in justifying the commercial breeding of wild animals as a supply-side approach. A lion skeleton prepared for export to be used in Traditional Chinese Medicine and trinkets. © Blood Lions, used with permission. There’s still a lot we don’t know. In our paper we highlighted the urgent need for scientific, peer-reviewed research to better understand consumer demand, economic comparisons between wild and farmed products, the genetics of captive lions, and the scale of illicit trade to get a more complete picture of the impact of commercial lion farming on wild lions. South African Wild Lion Populations Remain Stable, But What About Other Range States? In 2018 an assessment for African lions stated that the export of captive-bred lion trophies, live captive-bred lions for zoological or breeding purposes, and/or the trade of lion skeletons from the captive population would not harm South Africa’s wild lion population. The commercial captive lion industry has repeatedly failed to account for severe welfare issues, including malnourishment, obesity, overbreeding, inbreeding, poor keeping conditions, and health concerns. © Blood Lions, used with permission. But while wild lion populations in South Africa remain stable, our new research clearly highlights the risks associated with a commercial captive lion industry and the already vulnerable wild lion populations and other big cat species across other range states. Dr. Louise de Waal, director of Blood Lions and one of the paper’s authors, says South Africa’s stable wild lion population could change if the captive industry keeps growing: “We need to err on the side of caution globally, but in particular in African lion range states, to stop facilitating further emergence of commercial captive predator breeding and trade. This is particularly relevant when considering the increased wildlife trafficking opportunities between the African continent and Southeast Asia through, for example, the expansion of the Belt and Road Initiative, a global infrastructure development strategy by the Chinese government.” Welfare Concerns Continue The industry also has a long record of animal welfare violations. Some of the most recent cases include a successful conviction for animal cruelty after starved lions were discovered at a farm in May 2023. In another National Council of Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (NSPCA) welfare case in 2025, horrific animal cruelty and neglect were uncovered at a notorious predator facility, where at least 80 tigers were kept for commercial purposes, one of whom had resorted to self-mutilation to relieve stress and pain from untreated injuries. Commercial captive-keeping conditions fail to provide adequate living conditions for sentient apex predators, including the ability to hunt and roam freely. © Blood Lions, used with permission. These aren’t isolated incidents. Douglas Wolhuter, national chief inspector and manager of the NSPCA Wildlife Protection Unit, reported that they had conducted 176 inspections of captive lion facilities across South Africa from 2022 to 2024. Wolhuter outlined that in most cases, captive predators were denied even the bare basics like access to clean drinking water, proper food, shelter, environmental enrichment, hygienic living conditions, and appropriate veterinary care, including treatment of parasitic infestations. Many of the captive predator- and lion-breeding facilities required repeat visits due to unaddressed noncompliances. Their inspections resulted in 64 warnings, 10 formal Animal Welfare Notices, and 21 warrants granted in 2022 alone. That year, as a result, 23 severely compromised lions had to be euthanized. Our research, combined with these on-the-ground realities, provides another catalyst for South Africa’s Minister of Forestry, Fisheries, and the Environment, Dr. Dion George, to take urgent action by implementing a moratorium on breeding and a time-bound phaseout plan. It also signals the serious need for caution: Lion farming in South Africa isn’t saving wild lions. It could even be accelerating their decline, particularly in already vulnerable lion range states across other African countries. Previously in The Revelator: In South Africa, Tigers and Other Captive Predators Are Still Exploited for Profit. Legislation Offers Pitiful Protection The post Study: Commercial Lion Farming in South Africa Could Be Harming, Not Helping, Wild Lions appeared first on The Revelator.

Crocodile made famous by Steve Irwin ‘wrongfully arrested’ and should be returned to wild, traditional owners say

Exclusive: ‘Old Faithful’ was captured after Queensland authorities deemed him ‘a problem crocodile’, but Rinyirru Aboriginal Corporation says the government is mistakenGet our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcastTraditional owners have called on the Queensland environment minister to return an iconic saltwater crocodile to the wild, arguing his capture was a “wrongful arrest” – but that his case could prove “a landmark” in redefining consultation with First Nations people and the management of crocodiles.Rinyirru (Lakefield) Aboriginal Corporation chair, Alwyn Lyall, wrote to the environment minister, Andrew Powell, on Friday saying the removal of a crocodile longer than 4 metres, known as “Old Faithful”, from Rinyirru – or Lakefield national park – last month was based on a “flawed and outdated” test of his behaviour and highlighted “a bigger problem in how crocodiles are managed”. Continue reading...

Traditional owners have called on the Queensland environment minister to return an iconic saltwater crocodile to the wild, arguing his capture was a “wrongful arrest” – but that his case could prove “a landmark” in redefining consultation with First Nations people and the management of crocodiles.Rinyirru (Lakefield) Aboriginal Corporation chair, Alwyn Lyall, wrote to the environment minister, Andrew Powell, on Friday saying the removal of a crocodile longer than 4 metres, known as “Old Faithful”, from Rinyirru – or Lakefield national park – last month was based on a “flawed and outdated” test of his behaviour and highlighted “a bigger problem in how crocodiles are managed”.Sign up: AU Breaking News emailThe letter called on the state government to dismantle all crocodile traps and cease removals from the park – described as “Queensland’s Kakadu” – until the problems highlighted in the case of Old Faithful were resolved.The crocodile, which Lyall wrote was about 4.5 metres long, has a distinctive white scar across his belly and jaw and was made famous by Steve Irwin in his 1990s series, when Old Faithful was “hazed” by “The Crocodile Hunter” in an effort to instil fear of humans into the big reptile.Almost 30 years later, the crocodile was captured once again and, this time, removed from Rinyirru on 8 September by wildlife officers. He is being held in a government facility in Cairns, more than 250km south, awaiting transfer to a crocodile farm.After his removal, the Queensland environment department said they had been monitoring Old Faithful due to reports from the public and observed him “displaying concerning behaviour” in the prized barramundi fishing hole on the Normanby River that has been his territory for decades. So, the department said, the crocodile was “removed to ensure public safety”.Old Faithful is being held at a government facility in Cairns after his removal from the wild. Rangers also removed a smaller saltwater crocodile, between 3metres and 3.5m metres long. The department said the decision to remove both crocodiles was made after consultation with traditional owners.But in his letter, Lyall wrote that “key information” was “withheld” from traditional owners by the department during that consultation in what he now believes was “the hope of gaining our approval and expediting the removal process for their own agenda”.“We have reason to believe that Old Faithful was not the crocodile targeted for removal and that the animal reported by the public as the ‘problem crocodile’ was the smaller, emaciated crocodile, also caught during the trapping process,” Lyall wrote in a statement.“Our board have engaged with many stakeholders and we strongly believe Old Faithful was caught as a wrongful arrest.”The Kuku Yalanji man wrote that the “simulated fishing test” where a crocodile is lured with bait was “designed to elicit the behaviour needed to warrant removal” and likened it to “constantly throwing bananas at a cassowary at Etty Bay until it feeds, or kicking a dingo on K’gari until it bites”.“If you throw a barramundi out on a piece of rope and drag it back in and throw it out again and drag it back in and throw it out … You’re gonna get that crocodile’s attention sooner or later,” Lyall said.The Rinyirru Aboriginal Corporation chair said that big crocodiles like Old Faithful were a major tourist drawcard – but the attraction had proved a double-edged sword.While some were “just happy to see that crocodile on the bank”, others wanted the crocodile “right in front of them”.“If all of these people are feeding these crocodiles so they can take a photo of it, it makes that crocodile become lazy … it depends on hand outs,” he said. “Then our iconic crocodiles become the problem, because they are just sitting there waiting to be fed.skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Breaking News AustraliaGet the most important news as it breaksPrivacy 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“I find that to be very unfair – I think more onus should be coming back to the visitors that come into the park”.Lyall said he believed the department was “eyeing off” another three big crocodiles from Rinyirru as a result of the behaviour of visitors and the standard of tests used to determine if a crocodile was “a problem”.“For that reason, our board have asked the Queensland government to halt any further removals and to dismantle traps currently set in the park until a better plan is developed,” he wrote.Lyall wrote that the Rinyirru corporation’s board had engaged crocodile scientists emeritus professor Gordon Grigg and Dr and were advised that a captured crocodile could be returned to the wild and that there was precedent for it being done.“Old Faithful could be 80 or 100 years old – he deserves to live out his life in peace,” Lyall wrote.“We are asking that Old Faithful be returned home. He doesn’t belong to the Queensland government. He belongs to Rinyirru, and Rinyirru belongs to him.”The Environmental Defenders Office, acting on behalf of advocacy group Community Representation of Crocodiles (Croc), has requested and is awaiting a statement of reasons from the department to explain Old Faithful’s removal.A department spokesperson responded to questions with a statement saying “public safety is our top priority” and that the department “extensively monitored the crocodile after reports from the public raising safety concerns”.“We understand people were using food to lure the animal from the water to take photos,” the spokesperson said. “Habituating crocodiles is detrimental to the animal and dangerous for people.“The crocodile was displaying repeated and concerning behaviour that was escalating. It was ultimately removed to keep people safe.”

Baby numbats spotted at two wildlife sanctuaries in hopeful sign for one of Australia’s rarest marsupials

Video shows some of the juveniles exploring outside their den at Mallee Cliffs national park in south-western NSWSign up for climate and environment editor Adam Morton’s free Clear Air newsletter hereBaby numbats have been spotted at two wildlife sanctuaries in south-western New South Wales, sparking hope for one of Australia’s rarest marsupials.Video captured by the Australian Wildlife Conservancy (AWC) shows some of the juveniles exploring outside their den at Mallee Cliffs national park. Continue reading...

Baby numbats have been spotted at two wildlife sanctuaries in south-western New South Wales, sparking hope for one of Australia’s rarest marsupials.Video captured by the Australian Wildlife Conservancy (AWC) shows some of the juveniles exploring outside their den at Mallee Cliffs national park.Five numbat joeys, including quadruplet siblings, were seen at Mallee Cliffs and two more at Scotia wildlife sanctuary. The wildlife conservancy works with state national parks staff at both sites on projects that have been reintroducing the species in predator-free areas.Brad Leue, the videographer and photographer who captured the footage at Mallee Cliffs, said he watched the animals exploring outside the family den, which has an opening about the size of a coffee cup. Sign up to get climate and environment editor Adam Morton’s Clear Air column as a free newsletter“I was lucky enough to observe them for a couple of days and get an idea of their routine, which involved sharing a den with mum overnight, venturing out around 8am, and playing within 50 metres of their home while mum hunts for termites,” Leue said.Rachel Ladd, a wildlife ecologist with AWC, said babies were always a special find, “particularly for a species as difficult to spot in the wild as the numbat”.“Seeing seven young numbats lets us know that the population is breeding in favourable environmental conditions and becoming more established.”Numbats are one of Australia’s rarest marsupials and are listed as endangered under national laws.Numbat quadruplets emerge from their den at Mallee Cliffs national park. Photograph: Brad Leue/Australian Wildlife ConservancyA curious young numbat at Mallee Cliffs. Photograph: Brad Leue/Australian Wildlife ConservancyUnlike other Australian marsupials, they are active during the day and feed exclusively on termites.Numbats were once found across much of arid and semi-arid Australia, but by the 1970s had disappeared from most places except for isolated parts of south-west Western Australia due to predation by feral animals, such as foxes and cats, and habitat destruction.skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Clear Air AustraliaAdam Morton brings you incisive analysis about the politics and impact of the climate crisisPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionThey are listed as extinct in NSW but projects such as those at Mallee Cliffs and Scotia sanctuary are reintroducing the animals to re-establish populations in parts of their former range.The AWC said the five juveniles at Mallee Cliffs were believed to be the great-great-grandchildren of a cohort of numbats reintroduced to the national park in 2020.“It felt surreal seeing four siblings in the one location,” the AWC land management officer Michael Daddow said.“They were just cruising around, falling asleep and playing with each other. The bravest of the lot even ran up to me to check me out before scurrying back – it wasn’t scared at all.”The other two babies were observed running around logs at Scotia wildlife sanctuary on Barkindji Country, where the species was reintroduced in the late 1990s. The AWC said this observation along with other recent numbat sightings at that sanctuary gave conservation workers optimism the population was recovering after a decline triggered by the 2018-19 drought in the lower Murray-Darling region.

Baby giant tortoises thrive in Seychelles after first successful artificial incubation

Exclusive: Trial that has produced 13 hatchlings could help other threatened species avoid extinctionThe slow-motion pitter-patter of tiny giant tortoise feet has been worryingly rare in recent years, but that looks set to change thanks to the first successful hatching of the species with artificial incubation.One week after the intervention, the 13 babies are building up their strength on a diet of banana slices and leaves in Seychelles, which is home to one of the last remaining populations of the tortoise. Continue reading...

The slow-motion pitter-patter of tiny giant tortoise feet has been worryingly rare in recent years, but that looks set to change thanks to the first successful hatching of the species with artificial incubation.One week after the intervention, the 13 babies are building up their strength on a diet of banana slices and leaves in Seychelles, which is home to one of the last remaining populations of the tortoise.As new members of one of the biggest and longest-lived reptile species in the world, the Aldabra giant tortoise, they could eventually reach a weight of about 250kg (39.4st) and live more than 100 years.The hatchlings are the survivors from 18 eggs that were taken from a single nest on Cousin Island by local conservationists after scientists used a groundbreaking microscopic technique to analyse whether the shells contained at-risk embryos.The researchers said the successful trial could help to stave off an extinction crisis for other threatened species.A baby Aldabra giant tortoise. It could eventually reach a weight of about 250kg. Photograph: Chris Tagg/Nature Seychelles“This is a huge leap,” said Alessia Lavigna, a Seychelloise now based at the University of Sheffield, who was the lead author of a recent study related to the project. “It shows what conservation can do.”The study examined the reproduction rates of five turtle and tortoise species, which revealed that 75% of undeveloped eggs had been fertilised but contained embryos that died at an early stage.Those findings cast new light on why the Aldabra giant tortoise, which is classified as vulnerable by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, has extremely low hatching success in wild nests. The failure rate is considered more likely to be due to environmental factors rather than a genetic trait of the tortoises.Giant tortoises were wiped out from most other Indian Ocean islands in the 19th century as a result of hunting by sailors, but the population on the Aldabra group of islands in the Seychelles was saved thanks to their isolation. Along with 400 other endemic species and the extraordinary colours of the landscape, they were part of the reason why the atoll was listed as a world heritage site by Unesco in 1982.As a hedge against extinction, some individuals were moved to nearby islands, including Cousin, in the hope that they could establish backup populations in the event of new threats. This has proved prescient because at least one island is being developed as a luxury tourist resort, funded with Qatari money, as the Guardian revealed last year.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 promotionAn aerial view of Aldabra, the world’s largest raised coral atoll. Photograph: ReutersAccording to Lavigna, the reproduction rates of the tortoises on some islands appears to be low because there have been few sightings of juveniles in recent decades. Decadal studies record only the same individuals, prompting concerns that the relative stability of the population has more to do with the longevity of the species rather than their breeding rates.The incubation of fertilised eggs, which is being trialled in collaboration with the Save Our Seas Foundation, Nature Seychelles and several other local conservation organisations, can help to bolster numbers if there is a crisis. But the priority for research will be how to improve the conditions of wild nests.An Aldabra giant tortoise on Curieuse Island, Seychelles. Photograph: cinoby/Getty Images“Artificially incubating eggs is not a long-term solution. We can’t have animals that need human intervention to take the eggs, hatch them and put back,” said Nicola Hemmings of the University of Sheffield’s school of biosciences. “We have to identify the variables that are impacting survival, and then see if there are ways to improve the natural nest environment.”The team say they would like to share their results with scientists in the Galápagos islands, which are home to the only other species of giant tortoises.

Another rich town stares down the CA housing department

Scheduling note: WhatMatters is taking Indigenous Peoples’ Day off and will return to your inboxes Tuesday. When the town council of Los Altos Hills approved construction of new apartment buildings two years ago, it was a big deal for the affluent Santa Clara County community, writes CalMatters’ Ben Christopher. For decades the mansion-studded town permitted […]

An aerial photo near Los Altos Hills in 2014. Photo by Jewel Samad, AFP via Getty Images Scheduling note: WhatMatters is taking Indigenous Peoples’ Day off and will return to your inboxes Tuesday. When the town council of Los Altos Hills approved construction of new apartment buildings two years ago, it was a big deal for the affluent Santa Clara County community, writes CalMatters’ Ben Christopher. For decades the mansion-studded town permitted the construction of only one type of building, single-family homes, and no more than one per acre. But now Los Altos Hills — where the average home price is $5.5 million — is having second thoughts, and the events that are unfolding underscore how local governments continue to push back against state requirements to develop more affordable housing. Due to state mandates, town officials begrudgingly approved the development of Los Altos Hills’ first-ever affordable housing units since its incorporation in 1956. They chose an area along Interstate 280, known as Twin Oaks Court, and California housing regulators signed off on this plan in the spring of 2023.  But earlier this summer, the town council voted to cut the number of planned new homes by nearly two-thirds. Officials and residents say the proposed changes still meet state requirements, and that the original plan would obstruct emergency access areas, worsen traffic and disrupt local wildlife. State regulators are expected to respond to the town’s proposals by today, but pro-housing advocates have denounced the potential changes. The California Housing Defense Fund, in a September letter to the California Department of Housing and Community Development: “It is grossly inappropriate for the Town to carve back its most important low-income site. … Local agencies should not be allowed to amend their housing elements the moment that they are confronted with a real housing development project.” The dispute is being closely watched by other well-to-do cities that are proposing — or have proposed, to varying degrees of success — altering their own state-approved development plans, including Carmel and South Pasadena. Read more here. For the record: A story included in the Oct. 3 issue of WhatMatters contained a number of erroneous characterizations and conclusions based on an incorrect interpretation of campaign finance data. Read the full correction. 🗓️ CalMatters Events in your community Sacramento: Should Californians support mid-decade redistricting? Join us for a debate on Oct. 14 presented by CalMatters, Capitol Weekly and the UC Student and Policy Center. Register. San Jose: Join CalMatters and Alianza News on Oct. 17 for a screening of Operation: Return to Sender, a short documentary uncovering what happened during a Border Patrol raid in Bakersfield. After the film, CalMatters’ Sergio Olmos and others will discuss what the team uncovered. Register. Other Stories You Should Know Service members brace for missed checks U.S. Marine Corps recruits during a final drill evaluation at Marine Corps Recruit Depot in San Diego on Sept. 19, 2025. Photo by Corporal Sarah M. Grawcock, U.S. Marine Corps More than a week into the federal government shutdown, thousands of residents in San Diego County — which has the highest military population in the state — are bracing for missed paychecks, writes CalMatters’ Deborah Brennan.  In a region that already has one of the highest cost of living rates, some service members could miss out on their next paycheck on Oct. 15, while others who are paid monthly could see their wages frozen on Nov. 1.  Having enough money for food is a top priority for some families: Local food banks plan to add pop-up food banks near the county’s five military installations to help combat food insecurity. Maggie Meza, executive director for the San Diego chapter of Blue Star Families: “Rent still needs to be paid, food needs to be put on the table, cars need to be paid for, and our military families are now in the stress of uncertainty.” Read more here. More on Southern California: San Diego County is plagued by hydrogen sulfide emissions from pollution from the Tijuana River. The Salton Sea also emits this gas, which smells like rotten eggs and is linked to health risks. Deborah and CalMatters’ video strategy director Robert Meeks have a video segment on this issue affecting California’s largest lake as part of our partnership with PBS SoCal. Watch it here. SoCalMatters airs at 5:58 p.m. weekdays on PBS SoCal. Cooling down those mobile homes 🧊 Las Casitas mobile home park in American Canyon on Oct. 30, 2019. Photo by Anne Wernikoff for CalMatters From CalMatters’ environmental justice reporter Alejandra Reyes-Velarde: Californians who live in mobile homes will soon have the right to install cooling devices, after Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 806 into law on Tuesday.  Advocates for residents say lease provisions and park rules have sometimes banned air conditioning units. Tenant advocates at Legal Aid of Sonoma County, a sponsor of the legislation, said they were surprised such restrictions were legal. The bill was carried by Assemblymember Damon Connolly, a San Rafael Democrat. Caitlin Vejby, a housing policy analyst with the organization, said the law will save lives. Many mobile home residents in Californians are low-income, elderly or have health conditions that make them vulnerable to extreme heat, and three-quarters of mobile home parks are located in inland areas, some of the hottest regions of the state, she added.  Starting Jan. 1, tenants whose landlords don’t follow the rules can sue for damages and attorney fees. Landlords could also pay a $2,000 civil penalty.  And lastly: Test scores going up Students at a classroom at St. Hope’s Public School 7 Elementary in Sacramento on May 11, 2022. Photo by Miguel Gutierrez Jr., CalMatters Investments in mental health, access to transitional kindergarten and expanded after-school programs are some of the reasons behind the most significant improvements in state test scores in years, experts say. But some disparities among K-12 students still persist. Read more from CalMatters’ Carolyn Jones. California Voices CalMatters columnist Dan Walters: A dispute over an increase in hotel taxes in San Diego is the latest skirmish in the saga over voting requirements for local tax increase proposals. A conviction record can hinder one’s ability to find jobs, housing and education, but a state law making many old conviction records eligible for expungement can help some of the 8 million Californians living with a record, writes Joanna Hernandez, director of strategic partnerships at the San Francisco Pre-Trial Diversion Project. Other things worth your time: Some stories may require a subscription to read. Edison’s Eaton Fire compensation plan isn’t enough, residents say // CalMatters SF appeals court appears reluctant to block Trump’s National Guard Deployment to Portland // KQED Katie Porter’s viral videos plunge campaign into ‘disaster’ // Politico CA makes Diwali an official statewide holiday // AP News West Coast faults could trigger catastrophic back-to-back earthquakes, study finds // The Guardian  House Republicans launch investigation into distribution of LA fire charity funds // Los Angeles Times LA County considers declaring state of emergency to fight back against ICE raids // Los Angeles Times SoCal Edison sued for 2019 Saddleridge Fire damage by federal government // Los Angeles Daily News

Trump’s Tariffs Should Force a Reckoning With America’s Soy Industry

Usually, the best thing about being in the American soy business is the predictability. Buy seeds from the same companies, sow them, water them, harvest the crop, and sell to the same buyers who have been buying it for decades. The last few years have been particularly profitable, with historically high prices and a consistent client in China, the world’s biggest buyer of soy. The United States is the world’s second-biggest producer of soy, after Brazil, growing over 80 million acres of the oily bean across vast swathes of the country’s farmland. About a quarter of all that crop goes straight to China, bringing in $13.2 billion last year alone.Now that market is gone, as is any predictability. After the U.S. levied heavy tariffs on Chinese imports in April, China responded by refusing to buy American soy. That was in May. Now, with the American soy harvest nearing the end of its season, American farmers are panicking. As the global soy value chain rearranges in real time, Brazil has become China’s biggest supplier while Americans go hat in hand to small markets like Nigeria and Vietnam hoping to cut some deals. The Trump administration has hinted at a bailout. And, to add insult to injury, Argentina, which the administration just promised a $20 billion currency swap to rescue its flailing economy, is now selling shiploads of soy to China.This agricultural drama has been getting a lot of media attention over the past few weeks, in part because it is exemplary of the helter-skelter policymaking of the Trump administration and its unpredictable global implications. The bigger story about soy, though, isn’t the current trade war, but the fact we’re producing far too much of the crop—not so humans can eat it, but so animals can.In 1962, China’s per capita GDP was $71 and the average Chinese person ate about 9 pounds of meat per year. But as the country industrialized and urbanized in the wake of Deng Xiaoping’s economic reforms, increased consumer spending power fed a growing appetite for meat, especially pork. That, in turn, drove the country to pursue agricultural modernization, replacing smallholder farms with industrialized ones and embracing an “industrial meat regime” rooted in factory farming pork and poultry. In remaking its economy, China also remade its diet. Today, China’s per capita meat consumption is 154 pounds. The country has grown into the world’s biggest pork producer and pioneered massive pig production facilities like a 26-story mega-farm in Hubei province. Factory farming entails taking animals out of fields and growing them for the entirety of their lives in enclosed warehouses where their diets can be optimized to maximize quick growth for slaughter. But to feed all those animals, the fields need to be used to grow feed like corn and soy in massive quantities. China embraced soy production, but soon its demand for meat far outstripped its supply of available land. Today it imports 85 percent of the soy it uses, representing 60 percent of all global soy imports.While China’s embrace of a meat-heavy diet is remarkable in its speed and scale, it is only catching up to Europe, which has long practiced factory farming, and still lags the United States, which pioneered industrial animal farming and where per capita meat consumption is 220 pounds per year (and more if you count fish). The geographer Tony Weis calls the remaking of food systems to serve factory farming “meatification,” which entails diverting grain and oilseed production from human food toward animal feed. In the U.S., 35 percent of all corn and over 90 percent of soy becomes animal feed. In fact, 67 percent of all crops go to animal feed while 27 percent go directly to humans (the rest goes to biofuels). (Globally, 77 percent of all soy goes to animal feed; only 7 percent goes to human food like soy milk and tofu.) While this is inefficient and environmentally dubious, at least the U.S. can handle its domestic demand. The EU and China can’t. Hence the huge market for American soy abroad and Brazil’s and Argentina’s massive soy economies.As China’s demand for foreign soy grew, American farmers grew more of it: U.S. soy production and exports have double over the past 30 years, roughly tracking increases in Chinese meat consumption and soy demand for feed. The same was the case in Brazil. Importing soy amounts to offshoring demand for land. And that means offshoring deforestation. Most deforestation to create new soy farms takes place in South America. And with the U.S. cut off by China, Brazil is ending a moratorium on deforestation to cash in. This is just one of the many harms caused by a global appetite for meat. The recently-released “EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy, sustainable, and just food systems”—a collaboration between the Swedish food NGO EAT and the prestigious British medical journal The Lancet—shows that the global food system is outstripping planetary boundaries, driving unsustainable climate change, land use change, and eutrophication of water. The single biggest culprit by far is meat. China may have offshored deforestation, but its glut of factory farms have caused a series of crises at home as well, such as widespread pollution and animal disease outbreaks, including a swine fever epidemic in 2019 that killed tens of millions of animals.The irony here is that soy itself is an incredible crop and food. It’s hardy, adaptable, cheap to grow, and it fixes nitrogen in the soil, minimizing the need for fertilizer. The soybean is highly nutritious, packed with 35 percent protein and easy to cook or process into a variety of products, from oil and soy milk through to edamame, tofu, tempeh, and plant-based meats like Impossible burgers. This polyvalence and ease of use is precisely why it’s so widely used in animal feed. It’s just that feeding it to animals, beyond the environmental downsides, is inefficient. Any animal will consume far more calories and protein over its lifetime than it will yield as meat; the average pig will only yield about 9 percent the protein that it consumes. Eating soy directly requires far less soy (and land) than feeding it to animals. It’s not that soy is inherently harmful. It’s how we use it that’s harmful.Yes, American soy farmers are suffering. But we should take this moment to reflect on why we use so much American farmland to feed pigs both at home and in China, giving fuel to an environmentally destructive industry. How much soy we produce shouldn’t be a barometer for how well our agriculture sector is doing, but for how unsustainable it is.

Usually, the best thing about being in the American soy business is the predictability. Buy seeds from the same companies, sow them, water them, harvest the crop, and sell to the same buyers who have been buying it for decades. The last few years have been particularly profitable, with historically high prices and a consistent client in China, the world’s biggest buyer of soy. The United States is the world’s second-biggest producer of soy, after Brazil, growing over 80 million acres of the oily bean across vast swathes of the country’s farmland. About a quarter of all that crop goes straight to China, bringing in $13.2 billion last year alone.Now that market is gone, as is any predictability. After the U.S. levied heavy tariffs on Chinese imports in April, China responded by refusing to buy American soy. That was in May. Now, with the American soy harvest nearing the end of its season, American farmers are panicking. As the global soy value chain rearranges in real time, Brazil has become China’s biggest supplier while Americans go hat in hand to small markets like Nigeria and Vietnam hoping to cut some deals. The Trump administration has hinted at a bailout. And, to add insult to injury, Argentina, which the administration just promised a $20 billion currency swap to rescue its flailing economy, is now selling shiploads of soy to China.This agricultural drama has been getting a lot of media attention over the past few weeks, in part because it is exemplary of the helter-skelter policymaking of the Trump administration and its unpredictable global implications. The bigger story about soy, though, isn’t the current trade war, but the fact we’re producing far too much of the crop—not so humans can eat it, but so animals can.In 1962, China’s per capita GDP was $71 and the average Chinese person ate about 9 pounds of meat per year. But as the country industrialized and urbanized in the wake of Deng Xiaoping’s economic reforms, increased consumer spending power fed a growing appetite for meat, especially pork. That, in turn, drove the country to pursue agricultural modernization, replacing smallholder farms with industrialized ones and embracing an “industrial meat regime” rooted in factory farming pork and poultry. In remaking its economy, China also remade its diet. Today, China’s per capita meat consumption is 154 pounds. The country has grown into the world’s biggest pork producer and pioneered massive pig production facilities like a 26-story mega-farm in Hubei province. Factory farming entails taking animals out of fields and growing them for the entirety of their lives in enclosed warehouses where their diets can be optimized to maximize quick growth for slaughter. But to feed all those animals, the fields need to be used to grow feed like corn and soy in massive quantities. China embraced soy production, but soon its demand for meat far outstripped its supply of available land. Today it imports 85 percent of the soy it uses, representing 60 percent of all global soy imports.While China’s embrace of a meat-heavy diet is remarkable in its speed and scale, it is only catching up to Europe, which has long practiced factory farming, and still lags the United States, which pioneered industrial animal farming and where per capita meat consumption is 220 pounds per year (and more if you count fish). The geographer Tony Weis calls the remaking of food systems to serve factory farming “meatification,” which entails diverting grain and oilseed production from human food toward animal feed. In the U.S., 35 percent of all corn and over 90 percent of soy becomes animal feed. In fact, 67 percent of all crops go to animal feed while 27 percent go directly to humans (the rest goes to biofuels). (Globally, 77 percent of all soy goes to animal feed; only 7 percent goes to human food like soy milk and tofu.) While this is inefficient and environmentally dubious, at least the U.S. can handle its domestic demand. The EU and China can’t. Hence the huge market for American soy abroad and Brazil’s and Argentina’s massive soy economies.As China’s demand for foreign soy grew, American farmers grew more of it: U.S. soy production and exports have double over the past 30 years, roughly tracking increases in Chinese meat consumption and soy demand for feed. The same was the case in Brazil. Importing soy amounts to offshoring demand for land. And that means offshoring deforestation. Most deforestation to create new soy farms takes place in South America. And with the U.S. cut off by China, Brazil is ending a moratorium on deforestation to cash in. This is just one of the many harms caused by a global appetite for meat. The recently-released “EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy, sustainable, and just food systems”—a collaboration between the Swedish food NGO EAT and the prestigious British medical journal The Lancet—shows that the global food system is outstripping planetary boundaries, driving unsustainable climate change, land use change, and eutrophication of water. The single biggest culprit by far is meat. China may have offshored deforestation, but its glut of factory farms have caused a series of crises at home as well, such as widespread pollution and animal disease outbreaks, including a swine fever epidemic in 2019 that killed tens of millions of animals.The irony here is that soy itself is an incredible crop and food. It’s hardy, adaptable, cheap to grow, and it fixes nitrogen in the soil, minimizing the need for fertilizer. The soybean is highly nutritious, packed with 35 percent protein and easy to cook or process into a variety of products, from oil and soy milk through to edamame, tofu, tempeh, and plant-based meats like Impossible burgers. This polyvalence and ease of use is precisely why it’s so widely used in animal feed. It’s just that feeding it to animals, beyond the environmental downsides, is inefficient. Any animal will consume far more calories and protein over its lifetime than it will yield as meat; the average pig will only yield about 9 percent the protein that it consumes. Eating soy directly requires far less soy (and land) than feeding it to animals. It’s not that soy is inherently harmful. It’s how we use it that’s harmful.Yes, American soy farmers are suffering. But we should take this moment to reflect on why we use so much American farmland to feed pigs both at home and in China, giving fuel to an environmentally destructive industry. How much soy we produce shouldn’t be a barometer for how well our agriculture sector is doing, but for how unsustainable it is.

Richard Tice has 15-year record of supporting ‘net stupid zero’ initiatives

Firms led by deputy Reform UK leader since 2011 have shown commitment to saving energy and cutting CO2 emissionsUK politics live – latest updatesHe never seems to tire of deriding “net stupid zero”, but Reform UK’s deputy leader, Richard Tice, has a 15-year business record of support for sustainability and green energy initiatives.The Reform party has made opposition to green energy and net zero part of its policy platform. Its founder, Nigel Farage, has called net zero policies a “lunacy”; the party has called to lift the ban on fracking for fossil gas; and one of the first Reform-led councils, Kent, rescinded last month its declaration of a climate emergency. Continue reading...

He never seems to tire of deriding “net stupid zero”, but Reform UK’s deputy leader, Richard Tice, has a 15-year business record of support for sustainability and green energy initiatives.The Reform party has made opposition to green energy and net zero part of its policy platform. Its founder, Nigel Farage, has called net zero policies a “lunacy”; the party has called to lift the ban on fracking for fossil gas; and one of the first Reform-led councils, Kent, rescinded last month its declaration of a climate emergency.However, companies led by Tice since 2011 boasted of their commitments to saving energy, cutting CO2 emissions and environmental responsibility. One told investors it had introduced a “green charter” to “mitigate our impact on climate change” and later hired a “full-time sustainability manager” as part of “its focus on energy efficiency and sustainability”.Another said it was “keen to play its part in reducing emissions for cleaner air” and said it had saved “hundreds of tonnes of CO²” by installing solar cells on the rooftops of its properties.A glance at Tice’s account on X reveals contempt for warnings of climate breakdown and efforts to mitigate it. Last year he said: “We are not in climate emergency; nor is there a climate crisis.” In May he stated: “Solar farms are wrong at every level” and insisted they would “destroy food security, destroy jobs [and] destroy property values”.He recently adopted the slogan “net stupid zero”, describing efforts to neutralise the UK’s fossil fuel emissions as “the most costly self-inflicted wound in modern British history”.But Steff Wright, a sustainability entrepreneur and former commercial tenant of Tice, found that statements in the annual reports from CLS Holdings and Quidnet Reit, property companies led by Tice, contradicted his public position.Wright said: “These reports reveal that Tice can clearly see the financial, social and environmental benefits of investing time, money and energy into sustainability focused initiatives.“He is a businessperson, and if he has chosen to be a chief executive of at least two companies who have taken steps to reduce carbon emissions and implement energy-efficient innovations, it’s because there is a business case to do so.”In 2010, the year Tice joined CLS Holdings as deputy chief executive, the company said it was committed to “a responsible and forward-looking approach to environmental issues” by encouraging, among other things, “the use of alternative energy supplies”. The following year, when Tice was promoted to chief executive, the company implemented the green charter and hired a sustainability manager. In 2012, CLS celebrated completing its “zero net emissions” building, adding: “The board acknowledges the group’s impact on society and the environment and … seeks to either both minimise and mitigate them, or to harness them in order to affect positive change.”In the company’s 2013 report, climate change was identified as a “sustainability risk”, requiring “board responsibility”, “dedicated specialist personnel” and “increased due diligence”. The company’s efforts were rewarded in 2014, when it was able to tell shareholders it had exceeded its CO2 emissions reduction targets.Tice launched Quidnet Reit, a property investment company, the following year. When it published its first full accounts, covering 2021, Tice was also chair of Reform UK, and already setting out his stall against “net stupid”. But for his company, fossil fuel emissions remained a priority.The 2021 report stated: “The company is keen to play its part in reducing emissions for cleaner air,” and detailed investments in solar power which “importantly … will reduce CO² emissions by some 70 tonnes per annum”.Quidnet’s emissions reduction efforts continued into 2022 and 2023, with the company stating both years that its solar investments were “saving hundreds of tonnes of CO²” a year. However, after a Guardian report last year covered some of Quidnet’s environmental commitments, no mention was made of them in last year’s report.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 promotionWright said: “Solar initiatives and other energy efficiency schemes have benefited Tice’s property companies whilst he was in charge, but now … there is a political advantage to gain Tice is all too happy to label these schemes as ‘perilous’ for investors.”Tice said critics were “in danger of confusing apples with pears”, insisting the comparisons revealed no contradiction. “I have never said don’t reduce emissions, be they CO2 or other, and where sensible use technology to do so efficiently,” he said.“Solar panels on roofs, selling electricity to tenant[s] underneath are [an] excellent double use of [a] roof and involve no subsidies. Solar farms on farmland is insane, involves large public subsidies and often include dangerous [battery energy storage] systems.”Tice said that when he ran CLS, net zero was not a legal requirement. “My issue has always been the multibillion subsidies, fact that renewables have driven electricity prices higher, made British industries uncompetitive and destroyed hundreds thousand jobs,.“Also in annual reports, because of [the] madness of ESG, so banks and shareholder became obsessed with emissions so companies felt pressured to report on all this. ESG is also mad, stands for Extremely Stupid Garbage, and is now rapidly sensibly being abandoned by many companies and banks.“So my position has been clear and logical and never involved subsidies. Big difference.”

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.