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

Labor’s attempts to woo Greens and Coalition on nature laws revealed amid criticism of ‘coin toss’

Labor is continuing talks with both sides and could be prepared to give more groundFollow our Australia news live blog for latest updatesGet our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcastThe fate of Labor’s nature laws hangs in the balance after new concessions to the Coalition and the Greens failed to immediately convince either party to support them.But Labor is continuing talks with both sides and could be prepared to give more ground, as it desperately tries to land a deal to overhaul the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act before parliament rises for the year on Thursday night. Continue reading...

The fate of Labor’s nature laws hangs in the balance after new concessions to the Coalition and the Greens failed to immediately convince either party to support them.But Labor is continuing talks with both sides and could be prepared to give more ground, as it desperately tries to land a deal to overhaul the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act before parliament rises for the year on Thursday night.The intensifying negotiations comes as the government’s own advisory body on threatened species - the threatened species scientific committee (TSSC) - warned the legislation had not got the balance right to meet the goal of no new extinctions.In a submission to a Senate inquiry examining the bills, the committee warned the bills appeared to increase the minister’s discretion to decide when environmental protections would be upheld and this “could undermine” efforts to protect wildlife and avoid extinctions.The environment minister, Murray Watt, presented separate amendments to the Coalition and the Greens on Tuesday morning as he continues to pursue potential deals with both.The Climate Council chief executive, Amanda McKenzie, criticised the government for treating the long-awaited reforms “like a coin toss”.“Do they really care about protecting Australians and our environment from climate change, or is it all just politics?” she said.Under his offer to the Greens, Watt has offered several changes to address the party’s concern that coal and gas projects could be fast-tracked under the revamped EPBC Act.In one concession, the government is prepared to limit a new “streamline assessment” process to restrict fossil fuel projects.Labor is also prepared to reverse a controversial decision to hand the so-called “water trigger” back to the states, and ensure the commonwealth minister retains the ability to approve projects even under agreements that devolve decision-making powers to the states.As revealed on Saturday, coal and gas projects would also be excluded from a special “national interest” exemption if the Greens agree to support the legislation.After discussing the concessions at a party-room meeting on Tuesday morning, Guardian Australia understands the Greens are still not satisfied with the laws.The list of written amendments did not include the government’s offer to subject native forest logging to national environmental standards within three years, as negotiations continue on that provision.The Greens environment spokesperson, Sarah Hanson-Young, on Wednesday said the three-year timeframe was “three years too long”.Watt presented a separate set of concessions to the Coalition on Tuesday morning, which included imposing a 14-day time limit on “stop-work orders” and clarification that the maximum fines for breaches of nature laws – which are set at $1.6m for individuals and $825m for businesses – would only apply in the “most serious and egregious cases”.The latest offer did not include changes to “unacceptable impact” – a new definition that would, if met, result in an application being immediately refused.Clarifying that definition has been a key demand for the Coalition and industry groups, who claim it would set too low a bar to kibosh a project.Legal and scientific experts have the opposite view, fearing the provision won’t properly protect the most at-risk species and ecosystems.Liberal sources confirmed the shadow environment minister, Angie Bell, told the Coalition’s joint party-room meeting on Tuesday morning that failing to revise the definition was a “deal-breaker” for the opposition.Guardian Australia understands Watt remains open to reworking the “unacceptable impact” definition as well as the proposed new “net gain” test, which is supposed to force developers to make up for damage and deliver an overall benefit for the environment.The opposition leader, Sussan Ley, said the concessions offered on Tuesday morning were “totally insufficient”.Ley said the fact that Watt was simultaneously negotiating with the Coalition and the Greens showed that his main motivation was a “political fix”.“Right now, we have an environment minister with two sets of amendments, one in each hand. They’re radically different, these amendments,” she said.“He’s saying to the Coalition, make a deal with me. He’s saying to the Greens, make a deal with me. What does that tell you? What that tells you is this is a minister in search of a political fix, not in search of the legislative reform we need to bring investment, to back-in communities and jobs and to build the energy future that this country deserves.”

Drought killer: California storms fill reservoirs, build up Sierra snowpack

It's been the wettest November on record for several Southern California cities. But experts say that despite the auspicious start, it's still too soon to say how the rest of California's traditional rainy season will shape up.

A string of early season storms that drenched Californians last week lifted much of the state out of drought and significantly reduced the risk of wildfires, experts say.It’s been the wettest November on record for Southland cities such as Van Nuys and San Luis Obispo. Santa Barbara has received an eye-popping 9.5 inches of rain since Oct. 1, marking the city’s wettest start to the water year on record. And overall the state is sitting at 186% of its average rain so far this water year, according to the Department of Water Resources.But experts say that despite the auspicious start, it’s still too soon to say how the rest of California’s traditional rainy season will shape up.“The overall impact on our water supply is TBD [to be determined] is the best way to put it,” said Jeff Mount, senior fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California’s Water Policy Center. “We haven’t even really gotten into the wet season yet.”California receives the vast bulk of its rain and snow between December and March, trapping the runoff in its reservoirs to mete out during the hot, dry seasons that follow. Lights from bumper-to-bumper traffic along Aliso Street reflect off the federal courthouse in Los Angeles on a rainy night. (Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times) Those major reservoirs are now filled to 100% to 145% of average for this date. That’s not just from the recent storms — early season rains tend to soak mostly into the parched ground — but also because California is building on three prior wet winters, state climatologist Michael Anderson said.A record-breaking wet 2022-23 winter ended the state’s driest three-year period on record. That was followed by two years that were wetter than average for Northern California but drier than average for the southern half, amounting to roughly average precipitation statewide.According to the latest U.S. Drought Monitor report, issued last week before the last of the recent storms had fully soaked the state, more than 70% of California was drought-free, compared with 49% a week before. Nearly 47% of Los Angeles County emerged from moderate drought, with the other portions improving to abnormally dry, the map shows. Abnormally dry conditions also ended in Ventura, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo and much of Kern counties, along with portions of Central California, according to the map. In the far southern and southeastern reaches of the state, conditions improved but still range from abnormally dry to moderate drought, the map shows.The early season storms will play an important role in priming watersheds for the rest of the winter, experts said. By soaking soils, they’ll enable future rainstorms to more easily run off into reservoirs and snow to accumulate in the Sierra Nevada.“Building the snowpack on hydrated watersheds will help us avoid losing potential spring runoff to dry soils later in the season,” Anderson wrote in an email.Snowpack is crucial to sustaining California through its hot, dry seasons because it runs down into waterways as it melts, topping off the reservoirs and providing at least 30% of the state’s water supply, said Andrew Schwartz, director of UC Berkeley’s Central Sierra Snow Lab.The research station at Donner Pass has recorded 22 inches of snow. Although that’s about 89% of normal for this date, warmer temperatures mean that much of it has already melted, Schwartz said. The snow water equivalent, which measures how much water the snow would produce if it were to melt, now stands at 50%, he said.“That’s really something that tells the tale, so far, of this season,” he said. “We’ve had plenty of rain across the Sierra, but not as much snowfall as we would ordinarily hope for up to this point.”This dynamic has become increasingly common with climate change, Schwartz said. Snow is often developing later in the season and melting earlier, and more precipitation is falling as rain, he said. Because reservoirs need to leave some room in the winter for flood mitigation, they aren’t always able to capture all this ill-timed runoff, he said.And the earlier the snow melts, the more time plants and soils have to dry out in the summer heat, priming the landscape for large wildfires, Schwartz said. Although Northern California has been spared massive fires for the last few seasons, Schwartz fears that luck could run out if the region doesn’t receive at least an average amount snow this year.For now, long-range forecasts are calling for equal chances of wet and dry conditions this winter, Mount said. What happens in the next few months will be key. California depends on just a few strong atmospheric river storms to provide moisture; as little as five to seven can end up being responsible for more than half of the year’s water supply, he said.“We’re living on the edge all the time,” he said. “A handful of storms make up the difference of whether we have a dry year or a wet year.”Although the state’s drought picture has improved for the moment, scientists caution that conditions across the West are trending hotter and drier because of the burning of fossil fuels and resultant climate change. In addition to importing water from Northern California via the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, Southern California relies on water from the Colorado River. That waterway continues to be in shortage, with its largest reservoir only about one-third full.What’s more, research has shown that as the planet has warmed, the atmosphere has become thirstier, sucking more moisture from plants and soils and ensuring that dry years are drier. At the same time, there’s healthy debate over whether the same phenomenon is also making wet periods wetter, as warmer air can hold more moisture, potentially supercharging storms.As a result, swings between wet and dry on a year-to-year basis — and even within a year — seem to be getting bigger in California and elsewhere, Mount said. That increase in uncertainty has made managing water supplies more difficult overall, he said.Still, because of its climate, California has plenty of experience dealing with such extremes, said Jay Lund, professor emeritus of civil and environmental engineering at UC Davis.“We always have to be preparing for floods and preparing for drought, no matter how wet or dry it is.”Staff writer Ian James contributed to this report.

These 5-Second Hand Exercises For Dementia Are Going Viral. Here's What Neurologists Think.

Is boosting your brain health really this simple?

Social media is full of health hacks for better sleep, clear skin, a functioning gut, you name it. Lately, a tip for aging and cognitive function is gaining traction. Videos showing hand and finger exercises have racked up millions of views on TikTok and Instagram, with users suggesting these movements can help prevent dementia or Alzheimer’s disease.The exercises include things like alternated clapping, tapping, arm circles and pointing your fingers in different directions. And although they might look easy enough, exasperated folks in the comments sections highlight that some of these motions are a lot harder than they appear. But does failing at intricate finger movements and hand coordination exercises mean you’re cognitively doomed? And can these exercises really ― as the captions claim ― prevent dementia or Alzheimer’s? HuffPost asked a neurologist to weigh in. “While there are a few studies showing that aspects of mild cognitive impairment might be improved with these types of hand exercises, I would put forward that there is nothing magical about these movements,” said neurologist Dr. Chris Winter.Hand exercises are a way to practice motor skills, which can be beneficial for maintaining cognitive abilities as we age. But it might be a stretch to suggest that specific movements are going to remove your risk of developing dementia or Alzheimer’s disease. Can simple hand exercises really prevent dementia?Winter explained that hand and finger coordination can be beneficial as part of a larger pattern of mental and physical activity, but it’s not the hand gestures themselves that matter ― it’s the engagement and concentration involved.“Learning to play the piano or other activities that force concentration and the practice of improved hand/eye coordination are potentially just as useful,” Winter said. “I recommend that people stay active and engage in appropriately challenging activities. Learn a new language, pick up a guitar or a used set of drums, play pickleball. If you have the capacity to do these things, get off of TikTok and go do these things instead.”Brain function is less about hand gestures and more about movement and mental engagement that challenge your mind and body overall. “While no single exercise can prevent Alzheimer’s disease, regularly engaging your brain in complex, novel activities helps build what we call ‘brain reserve.’ A higher brain reserve can delay the onset of dementia symptoms or reduce their severity later in life,” said Dr. Majid Fotuhi, a neurologist and author of “The Invincible Brain: The Clinically Proven Plan to Age-Proof Your Brain and Stay Sharp for Life.”Board-certified neurologist Dr. Luke K. Barr emphasized that TikTok viewers shouldn’t mistake their inability to do some of these hand exercises as a red flag for cognitive decline. If you have trouble alternating pointing your thumbs and pinkies, that doesn’t mean you’re “already developing dementia,” as some commenters fear. “These are complex exercises that are difficult, especially at first, and require a lot of concentration and practice,” Barr said. “Just because someone is not able to do it easily right away, does not necessarily mean that they have dementia.”As with most anything complicated, practice makes perfect. “I think there are a variety of reasons why one could not do these gestures ― or rub their stomach while patting their head,” Winter added. “While someone with significant dementia is probably not likely to be able to do these activities, the fact that someone struggles with coordination does not indicate dementia or progression in this direction. Ability to pat your hands together is not a diagnostic test for cognitive decline.”So while those quick coordination challenges might be fun or stimulating, experts say, your best bet for brain health still lies in the basics: regular exercise, quality sleep, a balanced diet and staying mentally and socially active.“Factors such as poor diet, sedentary lifestyle, obesity, diabetes, hypertension, sleep problems, chronic stress and excessive alcohol can contribute to shrinkage in the brain,” Fotuhi said. “Along with genetic and environmental factors, these lifestyle and medical factors can damage small blood vessels, reduce rinsing mechanisms in the brain, cause ‘leaky brain’ and increase brain inflammation ― which over time lead to cognitive decline and Alzheimer’s disease. So rather than worrying about one task, it’s better to focus on overall brain health habits.”Ultimately, what exercise and mental stimulation mean can vary based on individuals’ abilities. “If you only have the capacity to practice hand gestures, then that’s OK too,” Winter said. But just remember that the real “hack” for keeping your brain sharp isn’t a social media exercise ― it’s a holistic approach to living a healthy, mindful and engaged life.

Have we found a greener way to do deep-sea mining?

There are widespread concerns that deep-sea mining for metals will damage fragile ecosystems. But if mining ever goes ahead, hydrogen plasma could shrink the carbon footprint of smelting the metal ores

Seafloor covered with manganese nodulesScience History Images/Alamy A process to extract metals from their ore with hydrogen could make deep-sea mining for valuable materials more sustainable than mining on land, a new study claims. Swathes of the ocean floor are littered with nodules the size of tennis balls. These polymetallic nodules are comprised largely of manganese, with smaller amounts of nickel, copper and cobalt, as well as other elements. As the construction of solar power and electric vehicles booms, demand for these metals is increasing because they are vital components of batteries and wiring. But plans to mine for the polymetallic nodules are highly controversial because operations to collect them would potentially harm the deep-sea floor – one of the last pristine ecosystems on Earth. Even so, some researchers suspect that deep-sea extraction will eventually take place. “I think there is a good chance that someday people… will mine the nodules,” says Ubaid Manzoor at the Max Planck Institute for Sustainable Materials in Germany. “So better to have a good process [for extracting metals] after mining than to have one more dirty process.” The Metals Company, a Canadian deep-sea mining company that has applied for a deep-sea mining permit from the Trump administration, plans to extract metals using a fossil fuel-based approach involving coke and methane. Its process involves placing the nodules first in a kiln and then an electric arc furnace – a greener alternative to a traditional blast furnace. Even so, the company says its approach will produce 4.9 kilograms of carbon dioxide emissions for every 1 kilogram of valuable metals. Manzoor and his colleagues have found a way to lower these extraction-related emissions. Their system doesn’t involve a kiln. Instead, the nodules would be ground into smaller pellets and placed straight into an arc furnace that also contains hydrogen and argon gas. High-energy electrons flowing from an electrode in the furnace to the pellets would knock electrons off the molecules of hydrogen gas, forming a plasma that can be heated up to temperatures exceeding 1700°C. The hydrogen ions in the plasma then react with the oxygen in the pellets, stripping the oxides away from the alloy and leaving pure metal behind. Besides water, the only by-products are manganese oxide and manganese ligates, which can be used for making batteries and steel. If the hydrogen gas used in the furnace is “green” – meaning it is produced by splitting water with electricity from renewable sources – and the electricity to run the furnace is generated from renewable sources, the process should emit no CO2, according to the researchers. Today, the vast majority of hydrogen is produced using fossil fuels. Metals like manganese are found on land as well as on the seafloor, but at concentrations about 10 times lower. Mining them on land involves moving large amounts of earth, and extracting the metal from the ore often relies on sulphuric acid. The process can result in razed rainforests and polluted rivers. However, land-based mining could be better regulated to prevent environmental destruction, and the smelting of the metals could be done with green hydrogen and renewable electricity rather than fossil fuels, argues Mario Schmidt at Pforzheim University in Germany. At that point, vacuuming up nodules from the seabed wouldn’t necessarily be more sustainable. “We do not see any fundamental advantage for deep-sea mining in terms of carbon footprint,” he says. “The sustainability of deep-sea mining fails because of the threat it poses to the biodiversity of deep-sea flora and fauna.” But the process that Manzoor and his colleagues have developed could help deep-sea mining become more economically viable, according to David Dye at Imperial College London. “In addressing how you would do the extraction metallurgy downstream of actually picking it up off the seabed, you may be able to then open up the business case and the environmental case to make that attractive,” he says. Manzoor stresses that the research isn’t meant to advocate for deep-sea mining, and the environmental impacts should be fully investigated.

Indigenous People Reflect On What It Meant To Participate In COP30 Climate Talks

Many who attended the UN summit in the Amazon liked the solidarity and small wins, but some felt the talks fell short on representation and true climate action.

BELEM, Brazil (AP) — Indigenous people filled the streets, paddled the waterways and protested at the heart of the venue to make their voices heard during the United Nations climate talks that were supposed to give them a voice like never before at the annual conference.As the talks, called COP30, concluded Saturday in Belem, Brazil, Indigenous people reflected on what the conference meant to them and whether they were heard.Brazilian leaders had high hopes that the summit, taking place in the Amazon, would empower the people who inhabit the land and protect the biodiversity of the world’s largest rainforest, which helps stave off climate change as its trees absorb carbon pollution that heats the planet.Many Indigenous people who attended the talks felt strengthened by the solidarity with tribes from other countries and some appreciated small wins in the final outcome. But for many, the talks fell short on representation, ambition and true action on climate issues affecting Indigenous people.“This was a COP where we were visible but not empowered,” said Thalia Yarina Cachimuel, a Kichwa-Otavalo member of A Wisdom Keepers Delegation, a group of Indigenous people from around the world.Some language wins but nothing on fossil fuelsFrom left: Taily Terena, Gustavo Ulcue Campo, Bina Laprem and Sarah Olsvig attend an Indigenous peoples forum on climate change at the COP30 UN Climate Summit, on Nov. 21, 2025, in Belem, Brazil.Andre Penner via Associated PressThe first paragraph of the main political text acknowledges “the rights of Indigenous Peoples, as well as their land rights and traditional knowledge.”Taily Terena, an Indigenous woman from the Terena nation in Brazil, said she was happy because the text for the first time mentioned those rights explicitly.But Mindahi Bastida, an Otomí-Toltec member of A Wisdom Keepers Delegation, said countries should have pushed harder for agreements on how to phase out fuels like oil, gas and coal “and not to see nature as merchandise, but to see it as sacred.”Several nations pushed for a road map to curtail use of fossil fuels, which when burned release greenhouse gases that warm the planet. Saturday’s final decision left out any mention of fossil fuels, leaving many countries disappointed.Brazil also launched a financial mechanism that countries could donate to, which was supposed to help incentivize nations with lots of forest to keep those ecosystems intact.Although the initiative received monetary pledges from a few countries, the project and the idea of creating a market for carbon are false solutions that “don’t stop pollution, they just move it around,” said Jacob Johns, a Wisdom Keeper of the Akimel O’Otham and Hopi nations.“They hand corporations a license to keep drilling, keep burning, keep destroying, so long as they can point to an offset written on paper. It’s the same colonial logic dressed up as climate policy,” Johns said.Concerns over tokenismBrazil Indigenous Peoples Minister Sonia Guajajara (R) poses for a selfie while walking through the COP30 UN Climate Summit venue, on Nov. 17, 2025, in Belem, Brazil.Andre Penner via Associated PressFrom the beginning of the conference, some Indigenous attendees were concerned visibility isn’t the same as true power. At the end, that sentiment lingered.“What we have seen at this COP is a focus on symbolic presence rather than enabling the full and effective participation of Indigenous Peoples,” Sara Olsvig, chair of the Inuit Circumpolar Council, wrote in a message after the conference concluded.Edson Krenak, Brazil manager for Indigenous rights group Cultural Survival and member of the Krenak people, didn’t think negotiators did enough to visit forests or understand the communities living there. He also didn’t believe the 900 Indigenous people given access to the main venue was enough.Sônia Guajajara, Brazil’s minister of Indigenous peoples, who is Indigenous herself, framed the convention differently.“It is undeniable that this is the largest and best COP in terms of Indigenous participation and protagonism,” she said.Protests showed power of Indigenous solidarityIndigenous leader and climate activist Txai Surui (R) shouts slogans while leaving a plenary session during the COP30 UN Climate Change Conference in Belem, Brazil, on Nov. 21, 2025. Pablo Porciuncula/AFP via Getty ImagesWhile the decisions by delegates left some Indigenous attendees feeling dismissed, many said they felt empowered by participating in demonstrations outside the venue.When the summit began on Nov. 10, Paulo André Paz de Lima, an Amazonian Indigenous leader, thought his tribe and others didn’t have access to COP30. During the first week, he and a group of demonstrators broke through the barrier to get inside the venue. Authorities quickly intervened and stopped their advancement.De Lima said that act helped Indigenous people amplify their voices.“After breaking the barrier, we were able to enter COP, get into the Blue Zone and express our needs,” he said, referring to the official negotiation area. “We got closer (to the negotiations), got more visibility.”The meaning of protest at this COP wasn’t just to get the attention of non-Indigenous people, it also was intended as a way for Indigenous people to commune with each other.On the final night before an agreement was reached, a small group with banners walked inside the venue, protesting instances of violence and environmental destruction from the recent killing of a Guarani youth on his own territory to the proposed Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project in Canada.“We have to come together to show up, you know? Because they need to hear us,” Leandro Karaí of the Guarani people of South America said of the solidarity among Indigenous groups. “When we’re together with others, we’re stronger.“They sang to the steady beat of a drum, locked arms in a line and marched down the long hall of the COP venue to the exit, breaking the silence in the corridors as negotiators remained deadlocked inside.Then they emerged, voices raised, under a yellow sky.

This Pig’s Bacon Was Delicious—and She’s Alive and Well

This story was originally published by Grist and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. I’m eating Dawn the Yorkshire pig and she’s quite tasty. But don’t worry. She’s doing perfectly fine, traipsing around a sanctuary in upstate New York. Word is that she appreciates belly rubs and sunshine. I’m in San Francisco, at an Italian […]

This story was originally published by Grist and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. I’m eating Dawn the Yorkshire pig and she’s quite tasty. But don’t worry. She’s doing perfectly fine, traipsing around a sanctuary in upstate New York. Word is that she appreciates belly rubs and sunshine. I’m in San Francisco, at an Italian joint just south of Golden Gate Park, enjoying meatballs and bacon not made of meat in the traditional sense but of plants mixed with “cultivated” pork fat. Dawn, you see, donated a small sample of fat, which a company called Mission Barns got to proliferate in devices called bioreactors by providing nutrients like carbohydrates, amino acids, and vitamins—essentially replicating the conditions in her body. Because so much of the flavor of pork and other meats comes from the animal’s fat, Mission Barns can create products like sausages and salami with plants but make them taste darn near like sausages and salami.  I’ve been struggling to describe the experience, because cultivated meat short-circuits my brain—my mouth thinks I’m eating a real pork meatball, but my brain knows that it’s fundamentally different and that Dawn (pictured above) didn’t have to die for it. This is the best I’ve come up with: It’s Diet Meat. Just as Diet Coke is an approximation of the real thing, so too are cultivated meatballs. They simply taste a bit less meaty, at least to my tongue. Which is understandable, as the only animal product in this food is the bioreactor-grown fat. Cultivated pork is the newest entrant in the effort to rethink meat. For years, plant-based offerings have been mimicking burgers, chicken, and fish with ever-more convincing blends of proteins and fats. Mission Barns is one of a handful of startups taking the next step: growing real animal fat outside the animal, then marrying it with plants to create hybrids that look, cook, and taste more like what consumers have always eaten, easing the environmental and ethical costs of industrial livestock. The company says it’s starting with pork because it’s a large market and products like bacon are fat-rich, but its technology is “cell-agnostic,” meaning it could create beef and chicken, too. Lab-grown meat ballsMatt Simon Honestly, Mission Barns’ creations taste great, in part because they’re “unstructured,” in the parlance of the industry. A pork loin is a complicated tangle of fat, muscle cells, and connective tissues that is very difficult and expensive to replicate, but a meatball, salami, or sausage incorporates other ingredients. That allows Mission Barns to experiment with what plant to use as a base, and then add spices to accentuate the flavors. It’s a technology that they can iterate, basically, crafting ever-better meats by toying with ingredients in different ratios.  So the bacon I ate, for instance, had a nice applewood smoke to it. The meatballs had the springiness you’d expect. During a later visit to Mission Barns’ headquarters across town, I got to try two prototypes of its salami as well—both were spiced like you’d expect but less elastic, so they chewed a bit more easily than what you’d find on a charcuterie board. (The sensation of food in the mouth is known in the industry as “mouthfeel,” and nailing it is essential to the success of alt meats.) The salami slices even left grease stains on the paper they were served on—Dawn’s own little mark on the world. I was one of the first people to purchase a cultivated pork product. While Mission Barns has so far only sold its products at that Italian restaurant and, for a limited time, at a grocery store in Berkeley—$13.99 for a pack of eight meatballs, similar to higher-end products from organic and regenerative farms—it is fixing to scale up production and sell the technology to other companies to produce more cultivated foods. (It is assessing how big the bioreactors will have to be to reach price parity with traditional meat products.) The idea is to provide an alternative to animal agriculture, which uses a whole lot of land, water, and energy to raise creatures and ship their flesh around the world. Livestock are responsible for between 10 and 20 percent of humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions—depending on who’s estimating it—and that’s to say nothing of the cruelty involved in keeping pigs and chickens and cows in unsavory, occasionally inhumane, conditions. “I also love the idea of taking their pork fat and putting it in a beef burger.” Getting animal cells to grow outside of an animal, though, ain’t easy. For one, if cells don’t have anything to attach to, they die. So Mission Barns’ cultivator uses a spongelike structure, full of nooks and crannies that provides lots of surface area for the cells to grow. “We have our media, which is just the nutrient solution that we give to these cells,” said Saam Shahrokhi, chief technology officer at Mission Barns. “We’re essentially recapitulating all of the environmental cues that make cells inside the body grow fat, [but] outside the body.” While Dawn’s fat is that of a Yorkshire pig, Shahrokhi said they could easily produce fat from other breeds like the Mangalitsa, known as the Kobe beef of pork. (In June, the company won approval from the US Department of Agriculture to bring its cultivated fat to market.) Fat in hand, Mission Barns can mix it with plant proteins. If you’re familiar with Impossible Foods, it uses soy to replicate the feel and look of ground beef and adds soy leghemoglobin, which is similar to the heme that gives meat its meaty flavor. Depending on the flavor and texture it’s trying to copy, Mission Bay uses pea protein for the meatballs and sausages, wheat for the bacon, and fava beans for the salami. “The plant-based meat industry has done pretty well with texture,” said Bianca Le, head of special projects at Mission Barns. “I think what they’re really missing is flavor and juiciness, which obviously is where the fat comes in.” But the fat is just the beginning. Mission Barns’ offerings not only have to taste good, but also can’t have an off-putting smell when they’re coming out of the package and when they’re cooking. The designers have to dial in the pH, which could degrade the proteins if not balanced. How the products behave on the stove or in the oven has to be familiar, too. “If someone has to relearn how to cook a piece of bacon or a meatball, then it’s never going to work,” said Zach Tyndall, the product development and culinary manager at Mission Barns. Lab-grown salamiMatt Simon When I pick up that piece of salami, it has to feel like the real thing, in more ways than one. Indeed, it’s greasy in the hand and has that tang of cured meat. It’s even been through a dry-aging process to reduce its moisture. “We treat this like we would a conventional piece of salami,” Tyndall said.  Cultivated meat companies may also go more unconventional. “I also love the idea of taking their pork fat and putting it in a beef burger—what would happen if you did that?” said Barb Stuckey, chief new product strategy officer at Mattson, a food developer that has worked with many cultivated meat companies. “Mixing species, it’s not something we typically do. But with this technology, we can.”  Of course, in this new frontier of food, the big question is: Who exactly is this for? Would a vegetarian or vegan eat cultured pork fat if it’s divorced from the cruelty of factory farming? Would meat-eaters be willing to give up the real thing for a facsimile? Mission Barns’ market research, Le said, found that its early adopters are actually flexitarians—people who eat mostly plant-based but partake in the occasional animal product. But Le adds that their first limited sale to the public in Berkeley included some people who called themselves vegetarians and vegans.  There’s also the matter of quantifying how much of an environmental improvement cultivated fat might offer over industrial pork production. If scaled up, one benefit of cultivated food might be that companies can produce the stuff in more places—that is, instead of sprawling pig farms and slaughterhouses being relegated to rural areas, bioreactors could be run in cities, cutting down on the costs and emissions associated with shipping. Still, those factories would need energy to grow fat cells, though they could be run on renewable electricity. “We modeled our process at the large commercial scale, and then compared it to U.S. bacon production,” Le said. (The company would not offer specific details, saying it is in the process of patenting its technique.) “And we found that with renewable energy, we do significantly better in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.” Whether or not consumers bite, though, remains to be seen. The market for meat alternatives in the US has majorly softened of late: Beyond Meat, which makes plant-based products like burgers and sausages, has seen revenues drop significantly, in part because of consumers’ turn away from processed foods. But by licensing its technology elsewhere, Mission Barns’ strategy is to break into new markets beyond the United States. The challenges of cultivated meat go beyond the engineering once you get to the messaging and branding—telegraphing to consumers that they’re buying something that may in fact be partially meat. “When you buy chicken, you get 100 percent chicken,” Stuckey said. “I think a lot of people go into cultivated meat thinking what’s going to come onto the market is 100 percent cultivated chicken, and it’s not going to be that. It’s going to be something else.”  Regardless of the trajectory of cultivated fat products, Dawn will continue mingling with llamas, soaking up the sunshine, and getting belly rubs in upstate New York—even as she makes plants taste more like pork. 

Colorado has wolves again for the first time in 80 years. Why are they dying?

On a sunny morning two years ago, a group of state officials stood in the mountains of northwestern Colorado in front of a handful of large metal crates. With a small crowd watching them, the officials began to unlatch the crate doors one by one. Out of each came a gray wolf — arguably the […]

Wildlife officials release five gray wolves on public land in northwestern Colorado on December 18, 2023. | Jerry Neal/Colorado Parks and Wildlife On a sunny morning two years ago, a group of state officials stood in the mountains of northwestern Colorado in front of a handful of large metal crates. With a small crowd watching them, the officials began to unlatch the crate doors one by one. Out of each came a gray wolf — arguably the nation’s most controversial endangered species.  This was a massive moment for conservation.  While gray wolves once ranged throughout much of the Lower 48, a government-backed extermination campaign wiped most of them out in the 19th and 20th centuries. By the 1940s, Colorado had lost all of its resident wolves.  But, in the fall of 2020, Colorado voters did something unprecedented: They passed a ballot measure to reintroduce gray wolves to the state. This wasn’t just about having wolves on the landscape to admire, but about restoring the ecosystems that we’ve broken and the biodiversity we’ve lost. As apex predators, wolves help keep an entire ecosystem in balance, in part by limiting populations of deer and elk that can damage vegetation, spread disease, and cause car accidents.  In the winter of 2023, state officials released 10 gray wolves flown in from Oregon onto public land in northwestern Colorado. And in January of this year, they introduced another 15 that were brought in from Canada. Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) — the state wildlife agency leading the reintroduction program — plans to release 30 to 50 wolves over three to five years to establish a permanent breeding population that can eventually survive without intervention.  “Today, history was made in Colorado,” Colorado Governor Jared Polis said following the release. “For the first time since the 1940s, the howl of wolves will officially return to western Colorado.” Fast forward to today, and that program seems, at least on the surface, like a mess. Ten of the transplanted wolves are already dead, as is one of their offspring. And now, the state is struggling to find new wolves to ship to Colorado for the next phase of reintroduction. Meanwhile, the program has cost millions of dollars more than expected.  The takeaway is not that releasing wolves in Colorado was, or is now, a bad idea. Rather, the challenges facing this first-of-its-kind reintroduction just reveal how extraordinarily difficult it is to restore top predators to a landscape dominated by humans. That’s true in the Western US and everywhere — especially when the animal in question has been vilified for generations.  Why 10 of the reintroduced wolves are already dead One harsh reality is that a lot of wolves die naturally, such as from disease, killing each other over territory, and other predators, said Joanna Lambert, a wildlife ecologist at the University of Colorado Boulder. Of Colorado’s new population, one of the released wolves was killed by another wolf, whereas two were likely killed by mountain lions, according to Colorado Parks and Wildlife.  The changes that humans have made to the landscape only make it harder for these animals to survive. One of the animals, a male found dead in May, was likely killed by a car, state officials said. Another died after stepping into a coyote foothold trap. Two other wolves, meanwhile, were killed, ironically, by officials. Officials from CPW shot and killed one wolf — the offspring of a released individual — in Colorado, and the US Department of Agriculture killed another that traveled into Wyoming, after linking the wolves to livestock attacks. (An obscure USDA division called Wildlife Services kills hundreds of thousands, and sometimes millions, of wild animals a year that it deems dangerous to humans or industry, as my colleague Kenny Torella has reported.)  Yet, another wolf was killed after trekking into Wyoming, a state where it’s largely legal to kill them. Colorado Parks and Wildlife has, to its credit, tried hard to stop wolves from harming farm animals. The agency has hired livestock patrols called “range riders,” for example, to protect herds. But these solutions are imperfect, especially when the landscape is blanketed in ranchland. Wolves still kill sheep and cattle.  This same conflict — or the perception of it — is what has complicated other attempts to bring back predators, such as jaguars in Arizona and grizzly bears in Washington. And wolves are arguably even more contentious. “This was not ever going to be easy,” Lambert said of the reintroduction program.  Colorado is struggling to find more wolves to ship in  There’s another problem: Colorado doesn’t have access to more wolves.  The state is planning to release another 10 to 15 animals early next year. And initially, those wolves were going to come from Canada. But in October, the Trump administration told CPW that it can only import wolves from certain regions of the US. Brian Nesvik, director of the US Fish and Wildlife Service, a federal agency that oversees endangered species, said that a federal regulation governing Colorado’s gray wolf population doesn’t explicitly allow CPW to source wolves from Canada. (Environmental legal groups disagree with his claim). So Colorado turned to Washington state for wolves instead.  But that didn’t work either. Earlier this month, Washington state wildlife officials voted against exporting some of their wolves to Colorado. Washington has more than 200 gray wolves, but the most recent count showed a population decline. That’s one reason why officials were hesitant to support a plan that would further shrink the state’s wolf numbers, especially because there’s a chance they may die in Colorado.  Some other states home to gray wolves, such as Montana and Wyoming, have previously said they won’t give Colorado any of their animals for reasons that are not entirely clear. Nonetheless, Colorado is still preparing to release wolves this winter as it looks for alternative sources, according to CPW spokesperson Luke Perkins.  Ultimately, Lambert said, it’s going to take years to be able to say with any kind of certainty whether or not the reintroduction program was successful.  “This is a long game,” she said.  And despite the program’s challenges, there’s at least one reason to suspect it’s working: puppies. Over the summer, CPW shared footage from a trail camera of three wolf puppies stumbling over their giant paws, itching, and play-biting each other. CPW says there are now four litters in Colorado, a sign that the predators are settling in and making a home for themselves. View this post on Instagram “This reproduction is really key,” Eric Odell, wolf conservation program manager for Colorado Parks and Wildlife, said in a public meeting in July. “Despite some things that you may hear, not all aspects of wolf management have been a failure. We’re working towards success.”

Under Current Guidelines, Most Lung Cancer Patients Weren't Eligible for Cancer Screening

By Ernie Mundell HealthDay ReporterMONDAY, Nov. 24, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Under current screening guidelines, almost two-thirds of Americans with...

By Ernie Mundell HealthDay ReporterMONDAY, Nov. 24, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Under current screening guidelines, almost two-thirds of Americans with lung cancer would not have qualified for the CT chest scans that could have spotted tumors early and extended their lives, new research shows. The finding hits home for 38-year-old Carla Tapia, a mother of three from Beltsville, Maryland. She smoked a bit in her youth but had kicked the habit by 18. Nevertheless, Tapia first developed respiratory symptoms in 2018, and was diagnosed with inoperable stage 4 lung cancer in 2020. After numerous chemotherapies failed, Tapia received a life-saving double-lung transplant at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago in 2024. She’s now attending college back at home in Maryland.According to Tapia, it's an ordeal timely screening might have prevented.“I keep hearing stories about young people being diagnosed with lung cancer, and if we could expand the screening guidelines, I believe more lung cancers could be caught at earlier stages, and more lives would be saved,” she said in a Northwestern Medicine news release.Current guidelines from the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) advise annual CT chest scans for adults ages 50 to 80 who have a 20 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years. According to study senior author Dr. Ankit Bharat, those eligibility guidelines are too restrictive and miss many people still at risk for the leading cancer killer.“We moved to universal age-based screening for breast and colon cancer with tremendous success, and we need to move to the same approach for lung cancer,” Bharat said in a Northwestern news release. “Chest screening offers something unique — with one low-dose scan, we can assess lungs, heart and bones comprehensively. This baseline scan becomes invaluable for monitoring their health over time,” said Bharat. He is chief of thoracic surgery and executive director of the Northwestern Medicine Canning Thoracic Institute.Lung cancer can strike anyone, including people who only smoked a short amount of time and even never-smokers. And, as happened in Tapia’s case, nearly 80% of the time lung cancers are first diagnosed in an advanced stage. The new study was published Nov. 20 in JAMA Network Open. It tracked nearly 1,000 consecutive patients whose lung cancers were treated at Northwestern Medicine.Based on their history of smoking (including never-smokers), Bharat’s group estimated that only 35% would have been eligible under USPSTF guidelines to be referred to annual lung CT scanning. Women and never-smokers made up a significant number of those who would have been excluded from eligibility for screening, the researchers said.They believe that moving to a universal screening approach — recommending lung screens for everyone ages 40 to 85 — could spot more tumors early, boost the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer care, and help level the playing field for disadvantaged Americans. According to the researchers, a typical lung CT scan takes less than 10 seconds and doesn’t require any intravenous imaging dyes. Bharat notes that the leftover effects of the COVID-19 pandemic could mean heightened risks of other lung illnesses among relatively young Americans."Nearly six years after the pandemic's start, we're seeing increasing numbers of patients with lung scarring and fibrosis from COVID-19, especially those who get reinfected with respiratory viruses," he said. “The damage compounds with each infection. Early detection through comprehensive screening can help us intervene before these conditions progress to requiring [lung] transplantation.”Northwestern’s Lung Health Center created a list of patient types who might want to consider lung screening:COVID-19 survivors who are having ongoing respiratory issues People exposed to contaminants such as wildfire smoke, industrial pollution or high radon levels People with family histories of lung disease or pulmonary fibrosis Those exposed to secondhand smoke, vaping or marijuana use Asian women and other demographics at elevated risk for lung conditions Anyone seeking baseline chest health assessment “We're seeing younger patients with respiratory problems from vaping, environmental exposures and COVID-19 who would never qualify for traditional screening,” said study co-author Dr. Scott Budinger, chief of pulmonary and critical care at the Canning Thoracic Institute.A more inclusive approach to screening “allows us to catch interstitial lung disease, pulmonary fibrosis, lung cancer and other conditions years before they'd typically be diagnosed,” he said in the news release.SOURCE: Northwestern Medicine, news release, Nov. 20., 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Why is climate action stalling, not ramping up as Earth gets hotter?

As the impact of global warming becomes more obvious, you might expect countries to step up climate action and preparation, but we’re seeing the opposite happen

Climate campaigners march on the sidelines of the COP30 summit in Belém, BrazilPABLO PORCIUNCULA/AFP via Getty Images Ten years on from the Paris Agreement, we should be seeing a massive ratcheting up of climate action. Instead, the past four years have seen almost no progress – including at the latest COP summit, which failed to take any meaningful steps towards phasing out fossil fuels or ending deforestation. What’s going on? I don’t know the answer. But I’m starting to fear that rather than responding more rationally as the world heats up and the impacts get ever more serious, our responses are becoming more irrational. If that is the case, climate impacts are going to be much worse than they would otherwise be, and the prospect of a decline in our global civilisation seems more plausible than I have long thought. Let’s start by going back to the Paris Agreement of 2015. The whole idea of an international climate agreement under which every country sets its own targets for limiting greenhouse emissions seemed ludicrous to me. As did the idea of setting an “aspirational” target of 1.5°C that was wildly disconnected from what countries were planning to do. Supporters claimed this would be solved by a “ratchet mechanism”, under which countries would progressively increase their targets. I wasn’t convinced. I came away from Paris regarding it as a gigantic greenwashing exercise. My expectation was that it would have little immediate impact, but as the effects of warming became more obvious, action would start to ramp up. In other words, reason would eventually prevail. So far, the opposite has happened. In the lead-up to Paris, in October 2015, the Climate Action Tracker project estimated that the world was heading for warming of around 3.6°C by 2100, based on current policies and action. By 2021, that estimate had been revised down to around 2.6°C. That’s a massive improvement − it seemed Paris was working. But the latest Climate Action Tracker report ahead of the COP30 summit makes for grim reading. For the fourth year in a row there has been “little to no measurable progress”. “Global progress is stalling,” the report says. “While a handful of countries are making genuine progress, their efforts are counterbalanced by others delaying, or rolling back climate policies.” In fact, an astonishing 95 per cent of countries missed this year’s deadline for updating their targets under that ratchet mechanism. Yes, renewable energy generation is growing much faster than predicted. But this is being counterbalanced by the huge sums being poured into fossil fuels. Cheap solar alone isn’t going to save us. For one thing, negative feedback effects kick in: the more solar there is, the less profitable it is to install more. For another, generating green electricity is the easy part – we’re not making nearly enough progress on the hard things, such as farming, flying and steel-making. What’s more, the problem isn’t just the failure to slash emissions. We’re not preparing to cope with what’s coming, either. We’re still building cities on sinking land next to rising seas. “Adaptation progress is either too slow, has stalled, or is heading in the wrong direction,” said an April report by the UK’s Climate Change Committee – and the picture is similar elsewhere. The big question is why climate action is stalling instead of ramping up further. In some countries, it’s obviously due to the election of politicians who don’t see climate change as a priority or unashamedly deny it, as reflected by the US withdrawing from the Paris Agreement. Even governments that say climate is a priority are doing less, however, seemingly on the basis that there are more urgent issues to deal with such as the cost of living crisis. Yet the cost of living crisis is in part a climate crisis, with extreme weather helping drive up food prices. As warming continues, the impact on food and the wider economy is only going to become more serious. Are we going to get to the point where governments say they can’t act on climate change because of the costs of dealing with major cities being inundated by rising seas? Are people’s fears about the state of the world going to make them keep voting for climate deniers despite pollsters telling us that most people worldwide want more climate action? The idea that that growing evidence will persuade leaders to come to their senses is looking ever more naive. We are, after all, in a strange multiverse where the US Centers for Disease Control is promoting antivax nonsense even as the country is about to lose its measles-free status, and where some politicians promote the idea that hurricanes were due to weather manipulation. After year after year of record-smashing heat, it’s never been more obvious that climate change is real and really bad. But perhaps that’s the problem. The philosopher Martha Nussbaum has argued that fear is a tremendously negative force that makes people abandon rationality and focus on their immediate welfare rather than the long-term good. And there is some evidence that environmental stresses make people behave irrationally. People tend to leap straight from “things are bad” to “we’re all doomed”. No, we aren’t doomed. But the longer it takes for reason to prevail, the worse the outcome will be. Maybe what we’re seeing is just a blip related to the pandemic fallout and Russia’s war on Ukraine − or maybe there’s something more worrying happening.

How to make data centers less thirsty

There’s a way to reduce both the climate and water harms of data centers: build them in places with lots of wind and solar energy.

Data centers are notoriously thirsty. Researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory have found that, in 2023, the facilities consumed roughly 17 billion gallons of water for their operations in the U.S. alone. But that’s only a small part of the picture: A much, much larger share of data center water-intensity is indirect, a byproduct of the facilities’ enormous appetites for energy. That’s because most power plants themselves require huge amounts of water to operate. This off-site, indirect water consumption amounted to a whopping 211 billion gallons in the Berkeley lab’s 2023 tally — well over 10 times the direct on-site usage. As Silicon Valley continues to pour hundreds of billions of dollars into artificial intelligence and demand for data centers grows, these water needs are only going to grow in tandem.  However, new research from Cornell University shows that there’s a way to mitigate both the climate and water footprints of these facilities: build them in places with lots of wind and solar energy. “Location really matters,” said Fengqi You, an energy systems engineering professor at Cornell and co-author of the new study. Where companies choose to locate their data centers could alter their combined environmental footprints by a factor of up to 100. In the course of their operations, data centers use water as a coolant. Energy-hungry servers generate substantial heat, and water circulates through cooling systems to prevent the equipment from overheating and breaking down. But substantial amounts of water are also used indirectly through the generation of electricity to run the facilities. Thermoelectric power plants, regardless of whether they use coal, gas, or nuclear material, use that fuel to generate heat that converts water into steam, which is then used to spin a turbine and generate electricity. And since hydroelectric plants typically store large volumes of water in reservoirs behind dams, there is water loss there as well, as water continually evaporates from the surface of reservoirs. All told, water use during power generation can be responsible for more than 70 percent of a data center’s total water consumption, according to the new Cornell research. “That’s why the electricity power grid mix is very critical,” said You.  You and his co-authors examined the energy and water use of data centers across the country to project where future investments should be made to reduce environmental impacts. The study assumes that the data center boom, which is being fueled by staggering levels of investment in artificial intelligence, is unlikely to slow down anytime soon. Against that backdrop, the question the study then poses is: Where in the country is the most environmentally sustainable place to build a data center? The researchers considered both the direct and indirect uses of energy and water as a result of building a data center in a specific location. The most promising region they identified might turn heads: bone-dry West Texas. But because the region is sparsely populated, has groundwater that can be drawn on for use as a coolant, and produces ample wind energy, it scored highest on both energy and water stress metrics. In fact, the grid-related water footprint in West Texas is among the lowest in the country, thanks to the large amount of wind energy produced, according to the study. “From an energy and water efficiency perspective, the states that have enough dry renewables will be the best choice,” said You, adding that Montana, Nebraska, and South Dakota all appear to be prime locations for future AI servers, alongside the Lone Star State. Conversely, most parts of the Pacific Northwest didn’t score as well because of the region’s reliance on hydropower. Although the cost of electricity is low in the area, the associated loss of water through power generation means that building more data centers is likely to have a substantially larger water footprint than it would in other parts of the country. Another recent study from researchers at Purdue University came to a similar conclusion. They looked at the availability of water across the country and mapped out how that might change over time, particularly as climate change makes some regions hotter and drier. The researchers also examined the water impact of existing Google data centers and found that the majority were located in areas with low water stress. “Companies absolutely take the environment into consideration in their decisions — not just the economic factor,” said Yi Ding, one of the authors of the paper and an electrical and computer engineering professor at Purdue. “We infer that Google already somewhat considered water stress because they put most of the data centers in low-stress regions.” Texas already has more than 400 data centers located in the state, second only to Virginia. The state’s grid infrastructure, potential for renewables, and availability of cheap land has made it an attractive proposition for tech companies. But the other states identified by the Cornell study as having a small environmental footprint — Nebraska, South Dakota, and Montana — have just 70 or so data centers combined, out of more than at least 4,200 nationally. That’s because a number of other factors, such as the policy environment and infrastructure considerations, are deterring companies from building new facilities there. But if those states geared their policymaking toward attracting data centers, it could make a difference, You said. This story was originally published by Grist with the headline How to make data centers less thirsty on Nov 24, 2025.

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.