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

“Climate Smart” Beef Was Never More Than a Marketing Fantasy

This story was originally published by Grist and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. Shoppers have long sought ways to make more sustainable choices at the supermarket—and for good reason: Our food system is responsible for a third of global greenhouse gas emissions. The vast majority of emissions from agriculture come from raising cows on industrial […]

This story was originally published by Grist and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. Shoppers have long sought ways to make more sustainable choices at the supermarket—and for good reason: Our food system is responsible for a third of global greenhouse gas emissions. The vast majority of emissions from agriculture come from raising cows on industrial farms in order to sell burgers, steak, and other beef products. Beef production results in two and a half times as many greenhouse gases as lamb, and almost nine times as many as chicken or fish; its carbon footprint relative to other sources of protein, like cheese, eggs, and tofu, is even higher.  If you want to have a lighter impact on the planet, you could try eating less beef. (Just try it!) Otherwise, a series of recent lawsuits intends make it easier for consumers to discern what’s sustainable and what’s greenwashing by challenging the world’s largest meat processors on their climate messaging. Tyson, which produces 20 percent of beef, chicken, and pork in the United States, has agreed to drop claims that the company has a plan to achieve “net zero” emissions by 2050 and to stop referring to beef products as “climate smart” unless verified by an independent expert.  “Even if you were to reduce [beef’s] emissions by 30 percent, it’s still not gonna be a climate-smart choice.” Tyson was sued in 2024 by the Environmental Working Group, or EWG, a nonprofit dedicated to public health and environmental issues. The group alleged that Tyson’s claims were false and misleading to consumers. (Nonprofit environmental law firm Earthjustice represented EWG in the case.) Tyson denied the allegations and agreed to settle the suit.  “We landed in a place that feels satisfying in terms of what we were able to get from the settlement,” said Carrie Apfel, deputy managing attorney of Earthjustice’s Sustainable Food and Farming program. Apfel was the lead attorney on the case. According to the settlement provided by Earthjustice, over the next five years Tyson cannot repeat previous claims that the company has a plan to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 or make new ones unless they are verified by a third-party source. Similarly, Tyson also cannot market or sell any beef products labeled as “climate smart” or “climate friendly” in the United States. “We think that this provides the consumer protections we were seeking from the lawsuit,” said Apfel.  The settlement is “a critical win for the fight against climate greenwashing by industrial agriculture,” according to Leila Yow, climate program associate at the Institute for Agricultural and Trade Policy, a nonprofit research group focused on sustainable food systems.  In the original complaint, filed in DC Superior Court, EWG alleged that Tyson had never even defined “climate-smart beef,” despite using the term in various marketing materials. Now Tyson and EWG must meet to agree on a third-party expert that would independently verify any of the meat processor’s future “net zero” or “climate smart” claims.  Following the settlement, Apfel went a step further in a conversation with Grist, arguing that the term “climate smart” has no business describing beef that comes from an industrial food system.  “In the context of industrial beef production, it’s an oxymoron,” said the attorney. “You just can’t have climate-smart beef. Beef is the highest-emitting major food type that there is. Even if you were to reduce its emissions by 10 percent or even 30 percent, it’s still not gonna be a climate-smart choice.” A Tyson spokesperson said the company “has a long-held core value to serve as stewards of the land, animals, and resources entrusted to our care” and identifies “opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across the supply chain.” The spokesperson added: “The decision to settle was made solely to avoid the expense and distraction of ongoing litigation and does not represent any admission of wrongdoing by Tyson Foods.”  The Tyson settlement follows another recent greenwashing complaint—this one against JBS Foods, the world’s largest meat processor. In 2024, New York Attorney General Letitia James sued JBS, alleging the company was misleading consumers with claims it would achieve net-zero emissions by 2040.  Industrial animal agriculture “has built its business model on secrecy.” James reached a $1.1 million settlement with the beef behemoth earlier this month. As a result of the settlement, JBS is required to update its messaging to describe reaching net-zero emissions by 2040 as more of an idea or a goal than a concrete plan or commitment from the company. The two settlements underscore just how difficult it is to hold meat and dairy companies accountable for their climate and environmental impacts.  “Historically, meat and dairy companies have largely been able to fly under the radar of reporting requirements of any kind,” said Yow of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. When these agri-food companies do share their emissions, these disclosures are often voluntary and the processes for measuring and reporting impact are not standardized.  That leads to emissions data that is often “incomplete or incorrect,” said Yow. She recently authored a report ranking 14 of the world’s largest meat and dairy companies in terms of their sustainability commitments—including efforts to report methane and other greenhouse gas emissions. Tyson and JBS tied for the lowest score out of all 14 companies. Industrial animal agriculture “has built its business model on secrecy,” said Valerie Baron, a national policy director and senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, in response to the Tyson settlement. Baron emphasized that increased transparency from meat and dairy companies is a critical first step to holding them accountable.  Yow agreed. She argued upcoming climate disclosure rules in California and the European Union have the potential to lead the way on policy efforts to measure and rein in emissions in the food system. More and better data can lead to “better collective decision making with policymakers,” she said.  But, she added: “We need to actually know what we’re talking about before we can tackle some of those things.”

A drying Great Salt Lake is spewing toxic dust. It could cost Utah billions

A new report lays out the case for action -- instead of waiting for more data.

Note to readers • This story is made possible through a partnership between The Salt Lake Tribune and Grist, a nonprofit environmental media organization. The dust blowing from the dry bed of the Great Salt Lake is creating a serious public health threat that policymakers and the scientific community are not taking seriously enough, two environmental nonprofits warn in a recent report. The Great Salt Lake hit a record-low elevation in 2022 and teetered on the brink of ecological collapse. It put millions of migrating birds at risk, along with multi-million-dollar lake-based industries such as brine shrimp harvesting, mineral extraction and tourism. The lake only recovered after a few winters with above-average snowfall, but it sits dangerously close to sinking to another record-breaking low. Around 800 square miles of lakebed sit exposed, baking and eroding into a massive threat to public health. Dust storms large and small have become a regular occurrence on the Wasatch Front, the urban region where most Utahns live. The report from the Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment and the Utah Rivers Council argues that Utah’s “baby steps” approach to address the dust fall short of what’s needed to avert a long-term public health crisis. Failing to address those concerns, they say, could saddle the state with billions of dollars in cleanup costs. “We should not wait until we have all the data before we act,” said Brian Moench, president of Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, in an interview. “The overall message of this report is that the health hazard so far has been under-analyzed by the scientific community.” After reviewing the report, however, two scientists who regularly study the Great Salt Lake argued the nonprofits’ findings rely on assumptions and not documented evidence. The report warns that while much of the dust discussion and new state-funded dust monitoring network focus on coarse particulates, called PM 10, Utahns should also be concerned about tiny particulates 0.1 microns or smaller called “ultrafines.” The near-invisible pollutants can penetrate a person’s lungs, bloodstream, placenta and brain. The lake’s dust could also carry toxins like heavy metals, pesticides and PFAS, or “forever chemicals,” Moench cautioned, because of the region’s history of mining, agriculture and manufacturing. “Great Salt Lake dust is more toxic than other sources of Great Basin dust,” Moench said. “It’s almost certain that virtually everyone living on the Wasatch Front has contamination of all their critical organs with microscopic pollution particles.” If the lake persists at its record-low elevation of 4,188 feet above sea level, the report found, dust mitigation could cost between $3.4 billion and $11 billion over 20 years depending on the methods used. The nonprofits looked to Owens Lake in California to develop their estimates. Officials there used a variety of methods to control dust blowing from the dried-up lake, like planting vegetation, piping water for shallow flooding and dumping loads of gravel. Dust blows over the Great Salt Lake on Monday, May 12, 2025. Trent Nelson / The Salt Lake Tribune The Great Salt Lake needs to rise to 4,198 feet to reach a minimum healthy elevation, according to state resource managers. It currently sits at 4,191.3 feet in the south arm and 4,190.8 feet in the north arm. The lake’s decline is almost entirely human caused, as cities, farmers and industries siphon away water from its tributary rivers. Climate change is also fueling the problem by taking a toll on Utah’s snowpack and streams. Warmer summers also accelerate the lake’s rate of evaporation. The two nonprofits behind the report, Utah Physicians and the Utah Rivers Council, pushed back at recent solutions for cleaning up the toxic dust offered up by policymakers and researchers. Their report panned a proposal by the state’s Speaker of the House, Mike Schultz, a Republican, to build berms around dust hotspots so salty water can rebuild a protective crust. It also knocked a proposal to tap groundwater deep beneath the lakebed and use it to help keep the playa wet. “Costly engineered stopgaps like these appear to be the foundation of the state’s short-sighted leadership on the Great Salt Lake,” the groups wrote in their report, “which could trigger a serious exodus out of Utah among wealthier households and younger populations.” Bill Johnson, a professor of geology and geophysics at the University of Utah who led research on the aquifer below the lake, said he agreed with the report’s primary message that refilling the Great Salt Lake should be the state’s priority, rather than managing it as a long-term and expensive source of pollution. Bill Johnson’s University of Utah graduate students haul their equipment out onto the playa of the Great Salt Lake on Tuesday, June 17, 2025. Rick Egan / The Salt Lake Tribune “We don’t want this to become just about dust management, and we forget about the lake,” Johnson said. “I don’t think anybody’s proposing that at this point.” It took decades of unsustainable water consumption for the Great Salt Lake to shrink to its current state, Johnson noted, and it will likely take decades for it to refill. Kevin Perry, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Utah and one of the top researchers studying the Great Salt Lake’s dust, said Utah Physicians and Utah Rivers Council asked him to provide feedback on their report in the spring. “It’s a much more balanced version of the document than what I saw last March,” he said of the report. “It’s still alarmist.” Perry agreed with the report’s findings that many unknowns linger about what the lakebed dust contains, and what Utahns are potentially inhaling when it becomes airborne. He said he remains skeptical that ultrafine particulates are a concern with lakebed dust. Those pollutants are typically formed through high-heat combustion sources, like diesel engines. “In the report, they just threw it all at the wall and said it has to be there,” Perry said. “I kept trying to encourage them to limit their discussion to the things we have actually documented. ” The report’s chapter outlining cost estimates for dust mitigation, however, largely aligned with Perry’s own research. Fighting back dust over the long term comes with an astronomical price tag, he said, along with the risk of leaving permanent scars from gravel beds or irrigation lines on the landscape. “Yes, we can mitigate the dust using engineered solutions,” Perry said, “but we really don’t want to go down that path if we don’t have to.” This story was originally published by Grist with the headline A drying Great Salt Lake is spewing toxic dust. It could cost Utah billions on Dec 1, 2025.

Wood-burning stoves to face partial ban in Labour’s updated environment plan

Exclusive: Pollution targets set out alongside nature recovery projects to allay concerns over housebuildingWood-burning stoves are likely to face tighter restrictions in England under new pollution targets set as part of an updated environmental plan released by ministers on Monday.Speaking to the Guardian before the publication of the updated environmental improvement plan (EIP), the environment secretary, Emma Reynolds, said it would boost nature recovery in a number of areas, replacing an EIP under the last government she said was “not credible”. Continue reading...

Wood-burning stoves are likely to face tighter restrictions in England under new pollution targets set as part of an updated environmental plan released by ministers on Monday.Speaking to the Guardian before the publication of the updated environmental improvement plan (EIP), the environment secretary, Emma Reynolds, said it would boost nature recovery in a number of areas, replacing an EIP under the last government she said was “not credible”.Reynolds said efforts to restore nature would now take place on “a strategic level” rather than a previously piecemeal approach, arguing this meant the government’s push to build housing and infrastructure could still come with a net gain in habitats.One element of the new EIP will see the targets for concentrations of PM2.5 particulate pollutants tightened to match current EU targets, something that was not part of the previous plan, published in 2023 under the Conservatives.According to sources in Reynolds’ department, this will involve a consultation on possible measures to reduce PM2.5 pollution, including those from wood-burning stoves and fireplaces.This could involve pollution limits being tightened in smoke control areas, which already limit what fuels can be burned: for example, setting out that wood can be burned only in approved types of stoves or burners, not in fireplaces.It could mean an effective ban on older appliances and that, in some places, it will not be possible to use a wood-burning stove at all.The current annual PM2.5 limit is 25ug/m3 (micrograms per cubic metre), with an aim to meet 10ug/m3 by 2040. The EU’s standards are stricter, with a new directive passed last year asking member states to meet 10ug/m3 by 2030.The World Health Organization recommends an annual limit of 5ug/m3. It is understood the EIP will bring the UK’s standards in line with the EU, with an aim to eventually meet WHO targets.Exposure to PM2.5s, which bury deep into the lungs, is linked to numerous health conditions including asthma, lung disease, heart disease, cancer and strokes. Domestic combustion accounted for 20% of PM2.5 emissions in 2023 and has been found to produce more pollution than traffic.Elsewhere in the EIP, Reynolds will set out that £500m of existing departmental money is to be allocated to landscape recovery projects, larger-scale attempts to restore landscapes and ecosystems, often working with farmers and other landowners.This will include a specific target to restore or create 250,000 hectares (618,000 acres) of wildlife-rich habitats by 2030.The EIP is required under the Environment Act, with the intention that it should put into action a more general commitment to improve the environment within a generation.For the first time, as part of the new EIP, the government will publish detailed Environment Act target delivery plans, which set out how actions will contribute to its aims and help to measure progress.Such moves, Reynolds argued, should mitigate fears about nature depletion owing to housebuilding and other projects, after fears were raised the government’s planning and infrastructure bill could reduce protections and see green spaces lost.skip past newsletter promotionThe planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essentialPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotion“What we’re talking about is restoring nature, not house by house, but at a more strategic level. We can be both pro-development and pro-home-ownership and pro-nature,” she said.“The last EIP, under the previous Tory administration, wasn’t credible. I’m confident that our EIP is credible, because it’s got these delivery plans built in. You can’t just set the targets. You’ve got to explain how you’re going to achieve those targets. And that’s exactly what we’ve done.”The new EIP is also expected to include a commitment from the previous plan for every household to be within a 15-minute walk of green space or a waterway.Other measures to be announced on Monday include a new plan for “forever chemicals”, to reduce the amount of PFAS in the environment, and a crackdown on illegal waste dumping.Ruth Chambers, from the Green Alliance thinktank, said the new EIP was “an important milestone and an opportunity to harness the government’s collective clout to deliver better for nature”.She said: “It must now be converted swiftly into the sustained action needed to restore nature, clean up our rivers and air, create a circular economy and help people reconnect with the natural world.”

England’s water industry issued £10.5bn in ‘green bonds’ despite pollution record

River Action says use of issuance tied to environmental benefits is ‘corporate greenwash on steroids’Water companies have issued a fifth of the UK’s “green bonds” since 2017, despite a consistently poor record of sewage pollution during that time, research has shown.Privately owned water companies in England have together issued £10.5bn in bonds tied to projects that offer “environmental benefits”, according to analysis of financial market data by Unearthed, which is part of Greenpeace UK. Continue reading...

Water companies have issued a fifth of the UK’s “green bonds” since 2017, despite a consistently poor record of sewage pollution during that time, research has shown.Privately owned water companies in England have together issued £10.5bn in bonds tied to projects that offer “environmental benefits”, according to analysis of financial market data by Unearthed, which is part of Greenpeace UK.Anglian Water has been the biggest issuer in the water industry, at £3.5bn, with struggling Thames Water second at £3.1bn. The two companies were the third- and sixth-largest issuers of corporate green bonds overall since 2017.Issuers of green bonds are expected to use the proceeds for defined purposes such as renewable energy, greenhouse gas control and clean transportation such as electric vehicles. Sustainable water and wastewater management is also included. This means many water companies’ standard operations qualify. In return, companies tend to be able to borrow more cheaply, because they attract investors hoping to benefit the environment while also profiting.Yet the privatised water industry in England and Wales has faced persistent criticism over its environmental record in recent decades, after years of alleged underinvestment and payment of large dividends to shareholders.The first green bond issued by a UK water company was in 2017, when Anglian, which supplies much of the east of England, raised £250m. However, the UK government’s Environment Agency last month said environmental progress across the sector had declined in the last year. Critics of the water industry said the poor performance raised questions over possible “greenwashing” in relation to the bonds.James Wallace, the chief executive of River Action, a clean water campaign group, said: “This is corporate greenwash on steroids. UK water companies are raising billions through green bonds while failing to deliver the environmental improvements these funds are supposed to support.“Their crumbling infrastructure continues to kill rivers and put communities at risk while investors are rewarded. True green finance should deliver real benefits for the environment and public health, not mask ongoing pollution.”Water companies accounted for 19% of all corporate issuance between 2017 and 2025. If issuance by the Thames Tideway “super sewer” developer is taken into account, that proportion rises to 22%.Thames Water’s effective owners are pushing for the government to grant it leniency on environmental standards for as long as 15 years as part of a rescue plan. Unearthed also revealed that Thames has failed to publish impact reports detailing its bonds’ environmental benefit for two years. Although not a legal requirement, the failure to publish the reports contravenes the industry standard.The company said it was still committed to publishing the impact reports for its green bonds. A spokesperson said: “The impact report for 2022-23 and 2023-24, which will detail the allocation of the £1.65bn raised through our January 2023 green bond issuance, has not yet been published. We take our reporting responsibilities seriously, and on this occasion we have fallen short of meeting expectations.”skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Business TodayGet set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morningPrivacy 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 Anglian spokesperson said growing the economy while reducing pollution required “significant and sustained investment in infrastructure”, adding that the funds raised “helped to deliver significant environmental improvements”.“We know there is more still to do, particularly on issues like pollution, but environmental performance is broader than just that one measure,” the spokesperson said, pointing to carbon emission reductions.They said it was vital that the government create the conditions for an “investable sector” through regulatory reform.Water UK, a lobby group for the industry, declined to comment.

Swiss Voters Reject Mandatory National Service for Women and New Inheritance Tax

Swiss voters have decisively rejected a call to require women to do national service in the military, civil protection teams or other forms as all men must do already

GENEVA (AP) — Swiss voters on Sunday decisively rejected a call to require women to do national service in the military, civil protection teams or other forms, as all men must do already.Official results. with counting still ongoing in some areas after a referendum, showed that more than half of Switzerland's cantons, or states, had rejected the “citizen service initiative” by wide margins. That meant it was defeated, because proposals need a majority of both voters and cantons to pass.Voters also heavily rejected a separate proposal to impose a new national tax on individual donations or inheritances of more than 50 million francs ($62 million), with the revenues to be used to fight the impact of climate change and help Switzerland meet its ambitions to have net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.Supporters of the national service plan hoped that it would boost social cohesion by adding jobs in areas like environmental prevention, food security and elderly care. But lawmakers opposed it, mainly for cost reasons and out of concern that it could hurt the economy by taking many young people out of the workforce.Young men in neutral Switzerland are already required to carry out military service or join civil protection teams. Conscientious objectors can do other types of service, and those who opt out entirely must pay an exemption fee. Each year, about 35,000 men take part in mandatory service.The failed initiative would have required all Swiss citizens to do national service — women can currently do so on a voluntary basis — and applied the concept of national security to areas beyond military service or civil protection. Its supporters pointed to “landslides in the mountains, floods in the plains, cyberattacks, risks of energy shortages or war in Europe” and said that their plan would mean everyone taking responsibility for “a stronger Switzerland that’s able to stand up to crises.”The government countered that the army and civil defense have enough staff, and no more people should be recruited than are needed.While compulsory military service for women might be seen as “a step toward gender equality,” it added, the idea would “place an extra burden on many women, who already shoulder a large part of the unpaid work of raising and caring for children and relatives, as well as household tasks.”The government also opposed the proposal for a new tax on large donations or inheritances, arguing that approval could prod some of the wealthiest in Switzerland — an estimated 2,500 people — to move elsewhere. Sums beyond 50 million francs ($62 million) could have been hit with a 50% rate.Switzerland holds national referendums four times a year, giving voters a direct say in policymaking.Geir Moulson contributed to this report from Berlin.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Nov. 2025

EPA urged to ban spraying of antibiotics on US food crops amid resistance fears

Use of 8m pounds of antibiotics and antifungals a year leads to superbugs and damages human health, lawsuit claimsA new legal petition filed by a dozen public health and farm worker groups demands the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stop allowing farms to spray antibiotics on food crops in the US because they are probably causing superbugs to flourish and sickening farm workers.The agricultural industry sprays about 8m pounds of antibiotic and antifungal pesticides on US food crops annually, many of which are banned in other countries. Continue reading...

A new legal petition filed by a dozen public health and farm worker groups demands the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stop allowing farms to spray antibiotics on food crops in the US because they are probably causing superbugs to flourish and sickening farm workers.The agricultural industry sprays about 8m pounds of antibiotic and antifungal pesticides on US food crops annually, many of which are banned in other countries.The overuse of antibiotics, which are essential to treating human disease, as pesticides on fruits and vegetables threatens public health because it can lead to superbug bacteria that are antibiotic-resistant. Similarly, overuse of antifungal pesticides can lead to fungal infections that are less treatable with medical currently available drugs, the groups say.“Each year Americans are at greater risk from dangerous bacteria and diseases because human medicines are sprayed on crops,” said Nathan Donley, environmental health science director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “This kind of recklessness and preventable suffering is what happens when the industry has a stranglehold on the EPA’s pesticide-approval process.”Antibiotic-resistant infections sicken about 2.8 million people and cause about 35,000 deaths, annually, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, estimates. The CDC has linked “medically important antibiotics” that the EPA has approved for pesticide use on crops to antibiotic resistance in bacteria, increased risk of staph infections and increased risk of MRSA.Documents that the Center for Biological Diversity obtained via Freedom of Information Act request show a 2017 CDC study raised concerns about the risks in expanding the use of antibiotics on citrus crops.“The use of antibiotics as pesticides has the potential to select for antimicrobial resistant bacteria present in the environment,” the agency wrote.Meanwhile, consuming antibiotic residues on food can also disrupt the human gut microbiome and increase the risk of chronic diseases. The substances also pollute drinking water supplies, and are thought to harm pollinators. Often low-income and Latino farm workers are most at risk.Farms spray the antibiotics because they kill bacteria that can damage or kill crops.Among the most common antibiotic pesticides is streptomycin, which is commonly used in medical care. The US Geological Survey estimates up to 125,000 pounds have been sprayed on US crops in one year.The petition comes as the EPA faces pressure to expand the use of human antibiotics, Donley said. The bacterial citrus greening disease, transmitted by the Asian citrus psyllid, is devastating citrus orchards in Florida.Donley acknowledged that the citrus industry faces an “incredibly scary” situation, but said pumping more medically important antibiotics on to crops would be a greater disaster in the long run.“I understand their desperation because they’re in dire strays, but from a societal point of view this is absolutely a no-brainer – it cannot happen,” Donley said. “The bottom line is the massive problems created by spraying human medicine on food crops far outweighs the agricultural problems.”Donley said there are simple crop management steps that should be tried first, like planting crops further apart, breeding more disease-resistant varieties of crops and identifying diseased trees and quickly removing them to prevent the diseases from spreading.The petition gives the EPA about five years to respond. Several years ago, the agency banned chloropyrifos in response to a similar legal petition, but a judge overturned the EPA’s ban.The agency can enact a ban, or must give a reason why it won’t. The EPA under the Trump administration was unlikely to act, Donley said. If it, or a future administration, does not act, then the groups can sue. The process could take more than a decade.“We’re playing the long game,” Donley said.

Colorado Finally Got Its Wolves Back. Why Are So Many Dying?

This story was originally published by Vox and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. 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 […]

This story was originally published by Vox and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. 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. “This was not ever going to be easy.” 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 Gov. 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 show 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. 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, who’s also the science adviser to the Rocky Mountain Wolf Project, an advocacy organization focused on returning wolves to Colorado, said of the reintroduction program. 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 United States. 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. View this post on Instagram 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. “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.”

These very hungry microbes devour a powerful pollutant

Microscopic organisms are being deployed to capture methane from sources such as farms and landfills, with the potential for reuse as fertilizer and fish food.

PETALUMA, Calif. — The cows had to be deterred from messing with the experiment.Researchers from a Bay Area technology company had come to the sprawling dairy farm north of San Francisco to test an emerging solution to planet-warming emissions: microscopic pink organisms that eat methane, a potent greenhouse gas.Kenny Correia, 35, of Correia Family Dairy, watched the team from Windfall Bio working near the lagoons used to store manure from the farm’s several hundred cows. The researchers erected a futuristic system of vats, pipes, tubes and shiny metal supports. Then, when everything was assembled, they poured pink liquid into one of the vats. “They were looking like mad scientists out there,” Correia recounted.He acknowledged initially thinking it was a “crazy idea” to integrate an outdoor laboratory into a working farm. There was the potential for the cows to “be all over it — licking it, pulling out wires and scratching on it,” he said.But livestock farms are a significant source of methane emissions, and Windfall wanted to see how much the microbes could help.Correia Family Dairy hosted a trial of a new way to control methane emissions. (Christie Hemm Klok/For The Washington Post)Methane bubbles on a manure lagoon at the farm. (Christie Hemm Klok/For The Washington Post)Fencing around the research equipment kept the cows out. And in June, Windfall reported that the roughly month-long trial had been a success. The microbes had absorbed more than 85 percent of the methane coming from one of the lagoons.“They know how to eat methane,” said Josh Silverman, the company’s CEO and founder. “We’re not creating something new. We’re not teaching them to do something they don’t normally do. They’ve evolved for a million years to do this.”Other varieties of microbes — including the tiny organisms in the gut of cows — are among the factors implicated in the increase of methane in the atmosphere, which is warming the Earth.The gas spews from livestock farms, landfills, wastewater treatment plants, natural gas operations, oil production, rice paddies, wetlands, thawing permafrost and even termite mounds. Although methane breaks down faster than carbon dioxide, its heat-trapping potential is 80 times as powerful in the first 20 years after it’s released.Methane-eating microbes could help disrupt that process.Bottles of microbes are kept in a refrigerator at Windfall Bio. (Christie Hemm Klok/For The Washington Post)They may be especially useful if deployed at the many scattered sites responsible for small methane emissions, which can collectively add up to a big problem in the atmosphere.Windfall estimates that if its microbe technology were scaled across the energy, waste and agriculture industries in the United States, it could annually slash up to 1.6 gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent, an amount produced by driving more than 370 million gas-powered cars for one year.Another research team, at the University of Washington, says its microbes deployed broadly could capture about 420 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year, or what could be generated from driving nearly 98 million gas-powered cars for a year.To develop a further benefit — and to help make their enterprises more commercially viable — the researchers are working to turn the methane-eating microbes into products such as fertilizer and animal feed, supporting a more sustainable food chain.“This waste methane is a huge resource,” said Mary Lidstrom, a chemical engineer and microbiologist who is leading the UW project. “Many of the technologies that address the climate really are only addressing climate, but this has a dual outcome.” Master stocks of microbes are stored in a Windfall Bio freezer. (Christie Hemm Klok/For The Washington Post)Finding hungry microbesLidstrom’s favorite microbes come from the bottom of a lake in eastern Siberia. About 20 years ago, a Russian postdoctoral student brought a sample of Methylotuvimicrobium buryatense to the University of Washington, urging her to take a look.Lidstrom had by then been working for three decades with microbes that consume the gas, also known as methanotrophs. She’d never seen anything like this strain: The rod-shaped microbes could quickly grow in varying conditions and had an especially healthy appetite for methane — demonstrating an ability to process and use the gas for energy to reproduce even when there were only low levels in the air.It became the “workhorse” of the lab’s experiments. “It’s just better than all these other methanotrophs,” she said.The pink color is a sign of healthy microbes. (Christie Hemm Klok/For The Washington Post)Windfall Bio CEO Josh Silverman. (Christie Hemm Klok/For The Washington Post)Silverman stayed local in his search for methane-eating microbes, affectionately dubbed “mems.” From compost piles and dirt near where he lives in Palo Alto, California, he collected samples of microbes and other microorganisms that coexist with them and enable the consumption of methane in nature. “Friends and helpers,” he calls them. The samples were then incubated inside his backyard gas grill, fed by methane coming from the natural gas line.The contents of a jar labeled No. 6 emerged victorious. The “Jar 6” strain is the basis for about a dozen newer cultivations that Windfall has been experimenting with.At the company’s lab in San Mateo, California, a large refrigerator holds an assortment of jars, bottles and plastic petri dishes containing mems.“The pinker they are, usually the happier and healthier they are,” Silverman said, grabbing a small bottle about three-quarters full with a wet pink jelly.Lidstrom, who said she considers her microbes her babies, can also tell just from looking how the organisms are faring. The cells should be growing in a thick film that has the consistency of mucus, she said, and have a salmon pink hue.A hotdog roller is used to heat and mix samples in the lab. (Christie Hemm Klok/For The Washington Post)Putting microbes to the testAs researchers continue to refine and breed strains of microbes, they are trying to figure out which combinations and methods work best to eliminate methane emissions in different contexts. Manure lagoons at dairy farms, for instance, may need a different approach than landfills.The goal is to remove as much of the polluting gas as possible. Silverman said Windfall’s microbes can — in theory — eat more than 99 percent of the methane that’s released. But conditions such as outside temperature can lower that number.“From a climate perspective, zero percent of the methane is being captured currently, so any reduction at all is still a net benefit,” he said. “The fact that we could achieve such a high conversion with a cheap, small-scale, farm-viable approach fills a niche that has been historically a very tough area to crack.”There are some established ways to capture large methane emissions. Landfills, for instance, typically extract methane using a system of wells and pipes. The gas can then be processed to generate electricity or turned into renewable biogas. Substantial quantities of methane can also be flared, or burned, which turns it into carbon dioxide.But at landfills and elsewhere, some of the gas can still escape into the air. And it’s been harder to find an affordable method to contain smaller releases.The Lidstrom Lab at the University of Washington tests how much methane can be captured by microbes at a decommissioned landfill. (Jovelle Tamayo/For The Washington Post)Mary Lidstrom, a chemical engineer and microbiologist. (Jovelle Tamayo/For The Washington Post)Windfall Bio and Lidstrom’s team are both experimenting with setups that funnel waste methane into a bioreactor — a fancy word for an enclosed system that could be as simple as a plastic container — where the microbes are held. Inside these containers, the minuscule organisms consume the gas and release carbon dioxide into the air.Although it may seem odd for a climate-friendly project to release CO2, scientists say the trade-off is worth it.“I’m in favor of any approach that destroys methane, even if it makes carbon dioxide, because that’s what happens to all the methane in the atmosphere,” said Rob Jackson, a climate scientist at Stanford University’s Woods Institute for the Environment, who is not involved in the microbe projects.Over time, methane naturally breaks down into CO2. By destroying methane, “you skip the most damaging part of the molecule’s lifetime, which is the 10 or 15 years it will spend as methane in the air before it turns into carbon dioxide,” Jackson said.Windfall Bio is also looking at applying microbes directly to the land where methane is seeping from. That sort of strategy could be deployed at landfills, the third-largest source of human-related methane emissions in the U.S., according to the Environmental Protection Agency.Windfall recently ran field tests of its microbes at a major landfill near Los Angeles.“We’re looking at all the different things that we can do to reduce methane and odors from landfills, and microbiology is one of the last frontiers,” said Eugene Tseng, a technical adviser for the local California enforcement agency that oversees environmental compliance at the landfill. “The implications are huge.”The soil room at Windfall Bio, where methane and carbon dioxide is measured by a flux meter. (Christie Hemm Klok/For The Washington Post)On the day The Washington Post visited the landfill, Carla Risso, Windfall Bio’s vice president of research and development, held a large white plastic watering can full of healthy mems. She leaned over and sprinkled the light pink liquid onto a plot of soil, trying to spread the solution evenly, as a light breeze carrying the faintest whiff of trash blew the droplets around.Researchers monitored how much methane was released from various plots treated with different applications of mems. A single application absorbed more than 75 percent of methane emissions, according to a Windfall report, and the microbes consumed at that rate for more than 30 days.Lian He, a researcher at the Lidstrom Lab, after collecting data from the landfill testing site. (Jovelle Tamayo/For The Washington Post)Condensation in a bioreactor with trays of microbe cultures. (Jovelle Tamayo/For The Washington Post)In Seattle, Lidstrom’s team launched its first field test in June, using a prototype bioreactor, made by colleagues at Auburn University, to capture methane emissions seeping from a decommissioned landfill on the UW campus.By the end of several rounds of testing, Lidstrom said the bioreactor was working as well in the field as it does in laboratory settings. Under certain conditions, the system achieved up to 90 percent reduction of methane, according to peer-reviewed results published in October.Although Lidstrom said there are still improvements to be made, her long-term vision is to deploy between 100,000 to 200,000 shipping-container-size treatment units that can be used to capture and process methane. The goal, she said, is to start putting units in the field by 2030.“It’ll take some years to ramp up,” she said.Some of the herd at Correia Family Dairy. (Christie Hemm Klok/For The Washington Post)The value of wasteMethane-eating microbes are natural recyclers. As they derive energy from methane, they grow and multiply, creating biomass, an organic material packed with protein and other nutrients.Researchers are trying to capitalize on this capability — to make their work even more beneficial, attract more customers and be profitable enough to reach scale.Lindstrom wants to repurpose the biomass as a protein-rich supplement for farmed fish. She anticipates that climate change and other factors leading to the decline of wild fish populations could increase the demand for aquaculture.“There’s already a market,” she said, noting that at least one cellular agriculture company is using microbes to produce protein for pet, fish and livestock feed. “It’s already been demonstrated, you don’t have to start from scratch, and it’s of reasonable value.”Windfall has begun producing fertilizer made from mems. The microbes are dried, turned into powder and pressed into chalky brown cylindrical pellets that carry a faint odor of dried meat. The company is also looking into developing a liquid fertilizer, Silverman said.The idea is that farms that use their microbes for containing methane can get fertilizer in return, which the farmers can either use themselves or sell.“If you are asking people to pay more for a climate solution, it doesn’t happen,” he said. “We need these things to be able to pay back for the operator itself.”A young bull calf rests in a barn. (Christie Hemm Klok/For The Washington Post)Making compost out of manure, using a solid waste separator, can help reduce methane emissions. (Christie Hemm Klok/For The Washington Post)Whether there will be large-scale demand for either a protein supplement or fertilizer produced through these methods is still something of an open question.Dairy farms don’t typically need fertilizer, since they use liquid manure, said Joseph Button, vice president of sustainability and strategic impact with Straus Family Creamery. But he said he could see some of the creamery’s suppliers, like Correia, interested in selling it to other agriculture operations.“There’s been a lot of — I’ll call them ‘biological solutions’ that have popped up that have not proven out at all,” Button said. “Part of my role is to safeguard the farmers from bad solutions.”But after reviewing lab data and seeing that Windfall had secured backing from major donors, such as Amazon’s Climate Pledge Fund, Button agreed to pitch farmers in his network on hosting a microbes pilot. (Amazon founder Jeff Bezos owns The Post.)Correia Family Dairy is certified as an organic milk supplier. (Christie Hemm Klok/For The Washington Post)Correia said he would welcome more tests at his dairy farm.The farm already uses other approaches to reduce emissions, including processing solid manure into compost. But as he checked on new calves — each a source of methane — Correia said he hoped that with the right technology and methods, he could one day run a farm that has “no negative impact on the environment.”“It’s 100 percent possible,” he said.

Water shortages could derail UK’s net zero plans, study finds

Tensions grow after research in England finds there may not be enough water for planned carbon capture and hydrogen projectsRevealed: Europe’s water reserves drying up due to climate breakdownTensions are growing between the government, the water sector and its regulators over the management of England’s water supplies, as the Environment Agency warns of a potential widespread drought next year.Research commissioned by a water retailer has found water scarcity could hamper the UK’s ability to reach its net zero targets, and that industrial growth could push some areas of the country into water shortages. Continue reading...

Tensions are growing between the government, the water sector and its regulators over the management of England’s water supplies, as the Environment Agency warns of a potential widespread drought next year.Research commissioned by a water retailer has found water scarcity could hamper the UK’s ability to reach its net zero targets, and that industrial growth could push some areas of the country into water shortages.The government has a legally binding target to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, and has committed to a clean power system by 2030 with at least 95% of electricity generated from low-carbon sources, but the study concludes there will not be enough water available to support all planned carbon capture and hydrogen projects.Development of these kinds of projects, which use significant amounts of water, could push some UK regions into water shortages, according to the analysis undertaken by Durham University and funded by the water retailer Wave – a joint venture between Anglian Venture Holdings, the investment and management vehicle responsible for Anglian Water Group’s commercial businesses, and the Northumbrian Water Group.Led by Prof Simon Mathias, an expert in hydraulics, hydrology and environmental engineering, researchers assessed plans across England’s five largest industrial clusters in Humberside, north-west England, the Tees Valley, the Solent and the Black Country, to determine how much water would be needed to reach net zero and whether the UK’s future water supply could meet this demand.“Decarbonisation efforts associated with carbon capture and hydrogen production could add up to 860m litres per day of water demand by 2050. In some regions, for example Anglian Water and United Utilities, deficits could emerge as early as 2030,” said Mathias.Decarbonisation within the Humberside industrial cluster could push Anglian Water into water deficit by 2030, leading to a shortage of 130m litres a day by 2050, while plans around the north-west cluster could push United Utilities into a deficit of around 70m litres a day by 2030, according to the research.However, a United Utilities spokesperson said the deficit figures were “overstated as regional water management plans already make allowances for the predicted hydrogen demand”, and added that the “drive to net zero is an important issue facing the water sector, with significant work already under way to drive sustainable solutions”.Anglian Water did recognise the deficit figures but said they were at the upper end of a range it had considered. It blamed Ofwat for not allowing water companies to spend more, hindering its ability to secure future supplies.Business demand is often excluded from strategic planning, according to Anglian Water, which it said prevented water companies from making the investments needed, weakening the system’s resilience to the climate crisis and limiting its capacity to support economic growth.A spokesperson for Water UK confirmed water companies’ plans to ensure there were enough water supplies in the future did not take into account the needs of some large planned projects, and blamed the Environment Agency for the omission.“After being blocked from building reservoirs for more than 30 years, we have finally been given approval to build 10. The problem is that the Environment Agency’s forecasts, on which the size, number and locations of these reservoirs are based, do not account for the government’s economic or low-carbon ambitions. Hydrogen energy needs a lot of water, so correcting these forecasts is increasingly urgent.”Nigel Corfield from Wave said he had commissioned the work because “water companies don’t have the same statutory obligations for businesses as they do for households, and we sensed that there was going to be a bit of a problem”.“Government and Ofwat are allowing businesses and these big projects to sort themselves out in terms of how they’re going to get their water,” said Corfield. “We generally don’t think that’s right, because this is about energy security so we think that the best people to provide that and supply that and support that are the water companies.”The government said the UK was “rolling out hydrogen at scale”, with 10 projects said to be shovel-ready. It said it expected all schemes to have sustainable water-sourcing plans and, where required, abstraction licences. Carbon capture schemes would get the green light only if they could prove they met strict legal standards and limits and offered “a high level of protection” for people and the environment, it said.“We face a growing water shortage in the next decade and that is one of the reasons we are driving long-term systemic change to tackle the impacts of climate change,” said a government spokesperson.“This includes £104bn of private investment to help reduce leakage and build nine reservoirs, as well as a record £10.5bn in government funding for new flood defences to protect nearly 900,000 properties by 2036.”But Dieter Helm, a professor of economic policy at the University of Oxford, said England’s water system was stuck in the past and that there was no lack of water, rather that it was badly managed.“It’s worse than an analogue industry,” he said. “Until recently, some water companies didn’t even know where their sewage works were, let alone whether they were discharging into rivers. The information set is extremely weak. But a data revolution now means we can map water systems in extraordinary detail, digitally, at a far finer resolution.”Helm said every drop of water should be measured and reported in real time, and that the data should sit with a new, independent catchment regulator, not the water companies.“You should never be able to have an abstraction without an abstraction meter,” he said. “And it should be a smart meter, automatically reporting. You can’t run a system without data, and you can’t rely on the water companies to hold the data for everyone in the system – they’re just one player.”In his model, the catchment regulator would hold live data on “all the catchment uses of water”, such as abstraction, runoff, water and river levels, sewage discharges, and publish everything on a public website. Anyone, he said, should be able to look up a catchment, see what was going on, and even model the impact of a new project, such as a hydrogen plant, on the system.“That’s how you run an electricity system,” Helm said. “Why don’t we have that in water? And why don’t we have a body responsible for it? There’s an information revolution required here, quite separate from the question of whether we actually run short of water.”The government and the Environment Agency have already warned of an England-wide water deficit of 6bn litres a day by 2055, and have said England faces widespread drought next year unless there is significant rainfall over the winter.

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.