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

UN General Assembly Chief Says Curbing Climate Change Would Make World More Peaceful and Safer

The president of the United Nations General Assembly says climate change is the biggest threat to world peace

BELEM, Brazil (AP) — Harms from climate change are the biggest threat to world peace, the president of the United Nations General Assembly says.“To those who are arguing that in these times we have to focus more on peace and security, one can only say the climate crisis is the biggest security threat of our century,” General Assembly President Annalena Baerbock told The Associated Press in an interview at the U.N. climate talks at the edge of the Amazon.“We can only ensure long-lasting peace and security over the world if we fight the climate crisis altogether and if we join hands in delivering on sustainable development because they are heavily interconnected,” said Baerbock, a former German foreign minister.Baerbock pointed to droughts and other damage from climate extremes in places such as Chad, Syria and Iraq. When crops die, people go hungry and then migrate elsewhere or fight over scarce water, she said.“This is a vicious circle,” Baerbock said. “If we do not stop the climate crisis it will fuel hunger and poverty which will fuel again displacement and by that will challenge regions in a different way, leading again to instability, crisis and most often also conflict. So, fighting the climate crisis is also the best security insurance.”But at the same time, dealing with climate change's problems can make the world more peaceful, Baerbock said, pointing to conflicts over water in Central Asia. There, an agreement on water became “a booster for peaceful cooperation and peaceful settlement.” Drought can take a long time to make an impact, but storms made worse by Earth's warming atmosphere can strike in a flash. Baerbock pointed to last month's Hurricane Melissa decimating Jamaica and two typhoons smacking the Philippines.“Achievements of sustainable development can be diminished in just hours,'' Baerbock said. That's why foreign aid from rich nations to poor to help deal with climate disasters and adapt to future ones "are also investments in stable societies and regions," she said.Baerbock, a veteran of climate conferences, said people scoffed at the young people of small island nations who filed a suit in the International Court of Justice about climate change, damage and their future. But the court's ruling in July that action must be taken to limit warming “shows the power of the world if it works together,” she said.Small island nations have said they will take the court's decision to the U.N. General Assembly, where votes are decided by majority unlike the veto power of the U.N. security council or the consensus unanimity of U.N. climate talks.“Now it’s up to the majority of the member states if they want to bring a resolution forward underlining the importance of this case,” said Baerbock, adding that she has to follow the desires of the majority of the 193 U.N. member states.“The vast majority of member states has called not only at the last climate conferences but also here in Belem for transitioning away from our fossil world, not because of the climate crisis, but because they underline that this is the best security investment for all of us,” Baerbock said.The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Nov. 2025

At UN Climate Conference, Some Activists and Scientists Want More Talk on Reforming Agriculture

Many of the activists, scientists and government leaders at United Nations climate talks underway in Brazil have a beef: They want more to be done to transform the world’s food system

BELEM, Brazil (AP) — With a spotlight on the Brazilian Amazon, where agriculture drives a significant chunk of deforestation and planet-warming emissions, many of the activists, scientists and government leaders at United Nations climate talks have a beef. They want more to be done to transform the world's food system.Protesters gathered outside a new space at the talks, the industry-sponsored “Agrizone,” to call for a transition toward a more grassroots food system, even as hundreds of lobbyists for big agriculture companies are attending the talks.Though agriculture contributes about a third of Earth-warming emissions worldwide, most of the money dedicated to fighting climate change goes to causes other than agriculture, according to the U.N.'s Food and Agriculture Organization.The FAO didn't offer any single answer as to how that spending should be shifted, or on what foods people should be eating.“All the countries are coming together. I don’t think we can impose on them one specific worldview,” said Kaveh Zahedi, director of the organization's Office of Climate Change, Biodiversity and Environment."We have to be very, very aware and conscious of those nuances, those differences that exist,” Zahedi said. An alternative universe at COP for agriculture When world leaders gather every year to try to address climate change, they spend much of their time in a giant, artificial world that typically gets built up just for the conference.One corner of COP30, as this year's conference is known, featured the alternative universe of AgriZone, where visitors could step into a world of immersive videos and exhibits with live plants and food products. Those included a research farm that Brazilian national agricultural research corporation Embrapa built to showcase what they call low-carbon farming methods for raising cattle, and growing crops like corn and soy as well as ways to integrate cover crops like legumes or trees like teak and eucalyptus. Ana Euler, executive director of innovation, business and technology transfer at Embrapa, said her industry can offer solutions needed especially in the Global South where climate change is hitting hardest."We need to be part of the discussions in terms of climate funds," Euler said. "We researchers, we speak loud, but nobody listens.”AgriZone was averaging about 2,000 visitors a day during COP30's two-week run, said Gabriel Faria, an Embrapa spokesman. That included tours for Queen Mary of Denmark, COP President André Corrêa do Lago and other Brazilian state and local officials.But while the AgriZone seeks to spread a message of lower-carbon agriculture possibilities, industrial agriculture retains a big influence at the climate talks. The climate-focused news site DeSmog reported that more than 300 industrial agriculture lobbyists are attending COP30. In the face of big industry, some call for a voice for smallholder farmers On a humid evening at COP30's opening, a group of activists gathered on the grassy center of a busy roundabout in front of the AgriZone to call for food systems that prioritize good working conditions and sustainability and for industry lobbyists to not be allowed at the talks.Those with the most sway are "not the smallholder food producers, ... not the peasants, and ... definitely not all these people in the Global South that are experiencing the brunt of the crisis," said Pang Delgra, an activist with the Asian People’s Movement on Debt and Development who was among the protesters. “It’s this industrial agriculture and corporate lobbyists that are shifting the narrative inside COPs.”“We have to decolonize our thoughts. It’s not just about changing to a different food,” said Sara Omi, from the Embera people of Panama and president of the Coordination of Territorial Leaders of the Mesoamerican Alliance of Peoples and Forests.“The agro-industrial systems are not the solution," she added. "The solution is our own ancestral systems that we maintain as Indigenous peoples."The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Nov. 2025

How to make sustainable seafood choices this Christmas to ease the pressure on Australia’s oceans

Australian Marine Conservation Society’s GoodFish guide aims to showcase the most environmentally friendly seafood sources Get our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcastAs a challenging year for marine life heads into its final weeks, GoodFish has shared its list of sustainable choices for the festive season to help take the pressure off Australia’s oceans.“It’s a time to be more careful than ever,” said Adrian Meder, sustainable seafood program manager at the Australian Marine Conservation Society, which produces the GoodFish guide. Continue reading...

As a challenging year for marine life heads into its final weeks, GoodFish has shared its list of sustainable choices for the festive season to help take the pressure off Australia’s oceans.“It’s a time to be more careful than ever,” said Adrian Meder, sustainable seafood program manager at the Australian Marine Conservation Society, which produces the GoodFish guide.The year has been marked by unprecedented high sea surface temperatures, mass fish kills and the persistent effects of South Australia’s toxic algal bloom, along with pollution from Tasmanian salmon farms and a renewed rise in overfishing, he said.Sign up: AU Breaking News email“The good news is, a whole lot of seafood producers are putting their best foot forward and showing the exact kind of leadership we need to address these challenges,” he said. “That’s who we’re showcasing this Christmas time.”Prawns are a summer staple for many families, commonly served chilled or thrown on the barbie.“Right now there’s a flood of imported prawns farmed with very questionable environmental practices pouring into Australia,” Meder said.Instead of imported vannamei prawns, GoodFish recommended locally caught king prawns from SA’s Spencer Gulf or Australian-farmed tiger or banana prawns as better options.The green-listed Spencer Gulf fishery was set for a bumper Christmas season, he said, while prawn farms along the Great Barrier Reef were required to meet stringent environmental requirements.The environmental practices of Tasmanian-farmed Atlantic salmon continue to be unacceptable, Meder said, with pollution, heavy antibiotic use and unacceptable treatment of wildlife such as seals.“We’re looking to steer people towards sustainably farmed fish, like barramundi and Murray cod,” he said. They are just as versatile in the kitchen, and uniquely Australian.Australian or New Zealand-farmed king salmon were also good alternatives to Atlantic salmon, according to the guide. For those wanting to try something different, New South Wales caught dusky flathead was a new addition to the guide’s green list.Farmed Australian oysters and mussels remained a good choice, Meder said.“They’re absolutely delicious and they’re farmed with remarkably low impact on the natural environment – an absolute Christmas classic from both a culinary and an environmental perspective.”Christmas was a good opportunity to support seafood producers in South Australia, an industry that had suffered due to the algal bloom. Meder said the state had a strong track record of monitoring the health of its seafood and the conditions of its marine environment, with a number of SA fisheries green-listed in the guide.“If you can find South Australian seafood on your shelves, you can have a really high confidence that it’s safe to eat,” he said.Sydney Fish Market’s existing Pyrmont site will remain open for a final Christmas seafood marathon, before moving to a brand new building in January. Shoppers were expected to turn out in record numbers for one “last hurrah” as retailers opened their doors for 36-hours straight, chief executive, Daniel Jarosch, said.“We will celebrate one final Christmas in our current home, before we open the doors to Sydney’s newest waterfront icon,” he said.Last year the market traded about 350 tonnes of seafood over the Christmas period, with 120t of prawns and 70,000 dozen oysters among the top sellers.Meder’s advice for anyone planning their festive feast was to “go straight to our GoodFish guide”. The guide rated the sustainability of 90% of seafood available in Australia, and suggested better alternatives when something came up as unsustainable.“Better yet, we’ll give you some advice on how to prepare it for friends and family as well to make sure Christmas is a special time and a sustainable time.”

Labor to rule out controversial ‘national interest’ exemption for coal and gas if Greens back nature laws

Exclusive: Concession follows fierce criticism of the workaround but may not be enough to convince minor partyGet our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcastLabor would prevent a contentious “national interest” exemption being used to approve coal and gas projects if the Greens agreed to support its nature laws, Guardian Australia can reveal.The offer follows a groundswell of criticism about the discretionary power, including from the author of the review that inspired the new laws, Graeme Samuel, and the former treasury secretary Ken Henry. Continue reading...

Labor would prevent a contentious “national interest” exemption being used to approve coal and gas projects if the Greens agreed to support its nature laws, Guardian Australia can reveal.The offer follows a groundswell of criticism about the discretionary power, including from the author of the review that inspired the new laws, Graeme Samuel, and the former treasury secretary Ken Henry.The concession alone may not be enough to win over the Greens, who demand protections for native forests and consideration of the climate impacts of projects in exchange for backing the proposed overhaul of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act.With the government desperate to pass the laws in parliament’s final sitting of the year, the environment minister, Murray Watt, is locked in negotiations with the Greens and Coalition in the hope of landing a deal next week.Neither side supports the bill in its current form, putting the onus on Labor to cough up concessions if it wants to avoid the long-awaited reform collapsing for the second time in 12 months.The opposition leader, Sussan Ley, is willing to support the laws if Labor agrees to gut environment protections and strip back the powers of its proposed environment protection agency (EPA).Sign up: AU Breaking News emailA senior government source confirmed to Guardian Australia that, under a potential deal with the Greens, it would rewrite the proposed “national interest” test to prevent it being used to approve fossil fuel projects.Critical minerals projects could still be approved.Under the provision, which Samuel initially supported in his 2020 review of the EPBC Act as a “rare exception”, the minister would be able to ignore environmental standards and greenlight a project if it was deemed in the “national interest”.While Watt has stressed the provision was intended for projects related to defence, national security and emergencies, the level of discretion written into the legislation has left him unable to rule out the possibility of exemptions for coal and gas.The Labor MP Ed Husic previously warned a future Coalition minister could misuse the power while Henry and Samuel both predicted a “conga line” of developers would lobby for special carveouts.Labor’s grassroots environmental action group also called for the power to be axed or at least subject to parliamentary oversight.As of Friday afternoon, the Greens environment spokesperson, Sarah Hanson-Young, and the shadow environment minister, Angie Bell, were still waiting for Labor’s options for a potential deal.The amendments would need to put forward in coming days to give both sides time to get a deal through their respective party-rooms early next week.The EPBC bills are listed for debate in the Senate on Wednesday. Parliament rises for the year on Thursday.Eucalypt forest at Waratah Gully in NSW’s South East Forest national park. Photograph: Auscape/Universal Images Group/Getty ImagesHanson-Young on Friday reiterated that the Greens wouldn’t support the legislation without extra protections for forests and the climate.Labor cast the Greens as perpetual “blockers” in the previous term of parliament, but Hanson-Young said the party wasn’t feeling pressure to cave to the government’s demands.“What plays on my mind is not allowing this government off the hook when they’re pushing for laws that will fast-track coal and gas,” she said.Ahead of Friday’s hearings, an alliance of major environment groups, including the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Wilderness Society and the legal firm Environmental Justice Australia, urged major changes to a bill that it warned “[does] not protect nature”.Among its suggested changes, the alliance called for the removal of new discretionary powers for the minister, the closing of loopholes for native forest logging, better engagement with First Nations communities, scrapping or limiting a proposed “restoration contributions” fund, consideration of climate impacts and reversing the decision to delegate decisions under the so-called “water trigger” to the states.The alliance also wants the federal EPA to be the main decision-maker on projects, with the minister only allowed to intervene in “exceptional circumstances”.Under the government’s model, which critics note is not genuinely independent, the minister would either make decisions or delegate that responsibility to an EPA official.“We call on the Labor government to substantially improve the bills and negotiate in good faith with members of the Senate that care about nature and a vibrant, healthy Australia,” the groups said.At Thursday’s round of inquiry hearings, the celebrated environmentalist and former Greens leader Bob Brown said the laws were an “insult to the environmental conscience of Australia”.He said the absence of a requirement for decision-makers to consider a project’s greenhouse gas emissions – known colloquially as a “climate trigger” – was analogous to stripping a treasurer of powers over taxation.“And I say that must be taken seriously, because that’s how the situation is,” he said.

The meat industry’s climate accountability moment is here

Some of the world’s biggest meat companies are finally facing a degree of accountability for allegedly deceiving the public about their pollution. On Monday, America’s largest meat producer, Tyson Foods, agreed to stop marketing a line of its so-called climate-friendly beef and to drop its claim that it could reach “net-zero” emissions by 2050. The […]

Cattle at a large feedlot in Texas. Some of the world’s biggest meat companies are finally facing a degree of accountability for allegedly deceiving the public about their pollution. On Monday, America’s largest meat producer, Tyson Foods, agreed to stop marketing a line of its so-called climate-friendly beef and to drop its claim that it could reach “net-zero” emissions by 2050. The changes are the result of a lawsuit settlement with the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit that sued Tyson for allegedly misleading consumers. Meat and dairy production are two of the highest polluting industries, accounting for 14.5 to 19 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, with much of it stemming from beef. As part of the settlement, Tyson must refrain from making these environmental claims for five years and can’t make new ones unless they’re verified by experts.  “This settlement reinforces the principle that consumers deserve honesty and accountability from the corporations shaping our food system,” Caroline Leary, general counsel and chief operating officer at EWG, said in a press release.    This story was first featured in the Future Perfect newsletter. Sign up here to explore the big, complicated problems the world faces and the most efficient ways to solve them. Sent twice a week. Tyson Foods declined an interview request for this story. In a statement to Vox, a Tyson spokesperson said 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.”   (If you’re wondering how Tyson was ever allowed to make these claims in the first place, it’s because the US Department of Agriculture lets meat companies say pretty much whatever they want on their packaging.)   Less than two weeks ago, the US subsidiary of Brazil-based JBS — the world’s largest meat company — paid $1.1 million to settle a similar lawsuit brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James over the company’s claim that it could reach net-zero emissions by 2040. “Bacon, chicken wings and steak with net-zero emissions,” the company stated in a 2021 full-page New York Times ad. “It’s possible.” (It’s not.)  The terms of the settlement will require JBS to discuss net zero as a goal or ambition, as opposed to a pledge or commitment. JBS didn’t respond to an interview request for this story. It all amounts to what two environmental researchers have called a form of “epistemic pollution” that shapes “what we know, understand and believe” about meat’s climate footprint. This pollution of public discourse has worked: Polls show people significantly underrate animal agriculture’s environmental impact.   The two settlements represent an antidote to that pollution, and a rare shred of justice for an industry that has otherwise evaded climate accountability. But if the events of the last 10 days at the world’s largest climate change conference are any indication, the meat giants aren’t deterred and are as emboldened as ever to mislead the public on their pollution and obstruct efforts to regulate it.  Calling the meat industry’s bluff  This month, over 50,000 people descended on Belém, Brazil, to attend the United Nations’ annual COP (conference of the parties) climate summit, where world leaders meet to assess the state of climate change and pledge to cut emissions.  The conference largely focuses on fossil fuels, but in recent years, it’s begun to put more attention on food and agriculture, which account for around one-third of global climate-warming emissions. In response, meat and dairy companies have ramped up their presence at COP events to influence negotiations. This year was no different. In fact, JBS led the food industry’s officially recognized effort to develop environmental policy recommendations for governments to consider.  Unsurprisingly, JBS and its peers didn’t recommend stringent environmental regulations or policies to shift countries away from meat-heavy diets, which environmental scientists say we must do to meet global climate targets. Instead, it’s promoting voluntary sustainability programs, like paying farmers to adopt more sustainable practices. In other words: “Don’t regulate our pollution, we’ll volunteer to clean it up — but only if governments give us money.”  This voluntary approach has been the meat industry’s playbook for decades. It’s been highly effective at shutting down the prospect of significant reforms to how we farm and what we eat, both in the international arena, like at COP, and here at home (most US environmental laws wholly or partially exempt animal factory farms).  The industry is able to sway policy in its favor because it invests a lot in doing so. It donates millions to politicians and aggressively lobbies them; it plays dirty by attacking scientists and pushing an alternative set of facts; and it portrays itself as a network of small, humble farmers and ranchers stewarding the land when, in reality, a handful of major polluters control much of the meat aisle.  The lawsuit settlements, however, are a small crack in this armor, and illustrate how when the industry is forced to defend some of its more outlandish claims, it can’t. We might eventually be able to have an honest public conversation about meat’s environmental and ethical harms, but only if more of civil society is willing to call its bluff.

How U.S. Universities Used Counterterror Fusion Centers to Surveil Student Protests for Palestine

Internal university communications reveal how a network established for post-9/11 intelligence sharing was turned on students protesting genocide.  The post How U.S. Universities Used Counterterror Fusion Centers to Surveil Student Protests for Palestine appeared first on The Intercept.

From a statewide counterterrorism surveillance and intelligence-sharing hub in Ohio, a warning went out to administrators at the Ohio State University: “Currently, we are aware of a demonstration that is planned to take place at Ohio State University this evening (4/25/2024) at 1700 hours. Please see the attached flyers. It is possible that similar events will occur on campuses across Ohio in the coming days.” Founded in the wake of 9/11 to facilitate information sharing between federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, fusion centers like Ohio’s Statewide Terrorism Analysis and Crime Center, or STACC, have become yet another way for law enforcement agencies to surveil legally protected First Amendment activities. The 80 fusion centers across the U.S. work with the military, private sector, and other stakeholders to collect vast amounts of information on American citizens in a stated effort to prevent future terror attacks. In Ohio, it seemed that the counterterrorism surveillance hub was also keeping close tabs on campus events. It wasn’t just at Ohio State: An investigative series by The Intercept has found that fusion centers were actively involved in monitoring pro-Palestine demonstrations on at least five campuses across the country, as shown in more than 20,000 pages of documents obtained via public records requests exposing U.S. universities’ playbooks for cracking down on pro-Palestine student activism. Related How California Spent Natural Disaster Funds to Quell Student Protests for Palestine As the documents make clear, not only did universities view the peaceful, student-led demonstrations as a security issue — warranting the outside police and technological surveillance interventions detailed in the rest of this series — but the network of law enforcement bodies responsible for counterterror surveillance operations framed the demonstrations in the same way. After the Ohio fusion center’s tip-off to the upcoming demonstration, officials in the Ohio State University Police Department worked quickly to assemble an operations plan and shut down the demonstration. “The preferred course of action for disorderly conduct and criminal trespass and other building violations will be arrest and removal from the event space,” wrote then-campus chief of police Kimberly Spears-McNatt in an email to her officers just two hours after the initial warning from Ohio’s primary fusion center. OSUPD and the Ohio State Highway Patrol would go on to clear the encampment that same night, arresting 36 demonstrators. Fusion centers were designed to facilitate the sharing of already collected intelligence between local, state, and federal agencies, but they have been used to target communities of color and to ever-widen the gray area of allowable surveillance. The American Civil Liberties Union, for example, has long advocated against the country’s fusion center network, on the grounds that they conducted overreaching surveillance of activists from the Black Lives Matter movement to environmental activism in Oregon. “Ohio State has an unwavering commitment to freedom of speech and expression. We do not discuss our security protocols in detail,” a spokesperson for Ohio State said in a statement to The Intercept. Officials at STACC didn’t respond to multiple requests for comment. The proliferation of fusion centers has contributed to a scope creep that allows broader and more intricate mass surveillance, said Rory Mir, associate director of community organizing at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “Between AI assessments of online speech, the swirl of reckless data sharing from fusion centers, and often opaque campus policies, it’s a recipe for disaster,” Mir said. While the Trump administration has publicized its weaponization of federal law enforcement agencies against pro-Palestine protesters — with high-profile attacks including attempts to illegally deport student activists — the documents obtained by The Intercept display its precedent under the Biden administration, when surveillance and repression were coordinated behind the scenes. “ All of that was happening under Biden,” said Dylan Saba, a staff attorney at Palestine Legal, “and what we’ve seen with the Trump administration’s implementation of Project 2025 and Project Esther is really just an acceleration of all of these tools of repression that were in place from before.” Not only was the groundwork for the Trump administration’s descent into increasingly repressive and illegal tactics laid under Biden, but the investigation revealed that the framework for cracking down on student free speech was also in place before the pro-Palestine encampments. Among other documentation, The Intercept obtained a copy of Clemson University Police Department’s 2023 Risk Analysis Report, which states: “CUPD participates in regular information and intelligence sharing and assessment with both federal and state partners and receives briefings and updates throughout the year and for specific events/incidents form [sic] the South Carolina Information and Intelligence Center (SCIIC)” — another fusion center. The normalization of intelligence sharing between campus police departments and federal law enforcement agencies is widespread across U.S. universities, and as pro-Palestine demonstrations escalated across the country in 2024, U.S. universities would lean on their relationships with outside agencies and on intelligence sharing arrangements with not only other universities, but also the state and federal surveillance apparatus. Read our complete coverage Chilling Dissent OSU was not the only university where fusion centers facilitated briefings, intelligence sharing, and, in some cases, directly involved federal law enforcement agencies. At California State Polytechnic University, Humboldt, where the state tapped funds set aside for natural disasters and major emergencies to pay outside law enforcement officers to clear an occupied building, the university president noted that the partnership would allow them “to gather support from the local Fusion Center to assist with investigative measures.” Cal Poly Humboldt had already made students’ devices a target for their surveillance, as then-President Tom Jackson confirmed in an email. The university’s IT department had “tracked the IP and account user information for all individuals connecting to WiFi in Siemens Hall,” a university building that students occupied for eight days, Jackson wrote. With the help of the FBI – and warrants for the search and seizure of devices – the university could go a step further in punishing the involved students. The university’s IT department had “tracked the IP and account user information for all individuals connecting to WiFi in Siemens Hall.” In one email exchange, Kyle Winn, a special agent at the FBI’s San Francisco Division, wrote to a sergeant at the university’s police department: “Per our conversation, attached are several different warrants sworn out containing language pertaining to electronic devices. Please utilize them as needed. See you guys next week.” Cal Poly Humboldt said in a statement to The Intercept that it “remains firmly committed to upholding the rights guaranteed under the First Amendment, ensuring that all members of our community can speak, assemble, and express their views.” “The pro-Palestine movement really does face a crisis of repression,” said Tariq Kenney-Shawa, Al-Shabaka’s U.S. policy fellow. “We are up against repressive forces that have always been there, but have never been this advanced. So it’s really important that we don’t underestimate them — the repressive forces that are arrayed against us.” Related How Northern California’s Police Intelligence Center Tracked Protests In Mir’s view, university administrators should have been wary about unleashing federal surveillance at their schools due to fusion centers’ reputation for infringing on civil rights. “Fusion centers have also come under fire for sharing dubious intelligence and escalating local police responses to BLM,” Mir said, referring to the Black Lives Matter protests. “For universities to knowingly coordinate and feed more information into these systems to target students puts them in harm’s way and is a threat to their civil rights.” Research support provided by the nonprofit newsroom Type Investigations. The post How U.S. Universities Used Counterterror Fusion Centers to Surveil Student Protests for Palestine appeared first on The Intercept.

‘Climate smart’ beef? After a lawsuit, Tyson agrees to drop the label.

Advocates say a recent settlement is a ‘win’ in the fight to hold industrial ag giants accountable.

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.  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 D.C. 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.  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 agrifood 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.” Editor’s note: Earthjustice and the Natural Resources Defense Council are advertisers with Grist. Advertisers have no role in Grist’s editorial decisions. This story was originally published by Grist with the headline ‘Climate smart’ beef? After a lawsuit, Tyson agrees to drop the label. on Nov 21, 2025.

Bears in the Backyard, Wolves at the Door: Greek Villages Have a Growing Predator Problem

Populations of brown bears and wolves are burgeoning in Greece, thanks to conservation efforts

LEVEA, Greece (AP) — It was a shocking sight for the farmer — three of his sheep lying dead on the ground, signs of their mauling unmistakable. The large paw prints in the earth left no doubt they had been killed by a bear, a once rare but now increasingly frequent visitor in this part of northwestern Greece. “It was a bear, a very big one, and they come often now. I wasn’t the only one, it struck elsewhere too,” said Anastasios Kasparidis, adding that another farmer had lost some chickens and pigs. He decided to move the rest of his small flock into a sheep pen near his house for protection. “Because in the end I wouldn’t have any sheep," Kasparidis said. "The bears would eat them all.”Environmentalists have welcomed the rebound of bear and wolf populations in Greece thanks to the protected species designation that banned them being hunted. But some farmers and residents of rural areas say they now fear for their livelihoods and, in some cases, their safety. They are calling for greater protection in a phenomenon playing out elsewhere in Europe, with some arguing conservation has gone too far and pushing to roll back restrictions.Brown bears, Greece’s largest predator, have made a remarkable comeback. Their numbers have increased roughly fourfold since the 1990s, said Dimitris Bakaloudis, a professor at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki who specializes in wildlife management and conservation.Up to an estimated 870 brown bears roam the forests of northern Greece, according to the most recent survey by Arcturos, an environmental organization set up in 1992 that provides a sanctuary for rescued bears and wolves.And it's not just bears. Wolves also have seen their numbers rise. While wolves could only be found as far south as central Greece in 2010, they have now spread to the outskirts of Athens and into the Peloponnese in southern Greece, Bakaloudis said.Their recovery has been sustained in part by the also increasing population of wild boars, which is unrelated to conservation efforts. Rather, a combination of a number of factors, including a reduction of hunting, milder winters and cross-breeding with domestic pigs have led them to reproduce at a faster rate, Bakaloudis explained. Viewed by many as pests that destroy crops, the sight of a dozen or more boars trotting along sidewalks or snuffling through backyards are no longer uncommon in many parts of Greece. Increasing human encounters The larger number of wild animals has also resulted in more contact with humans — the vast majority of whom are unfamiliar with how to behave during an encounter. Lack of familiarity has led to fear in some communities, particularly following a small number of serious incidents this year: a child bitten by a wolf, an elderly man injured by a bear in his yard, a hiker bitten by a bear and another hiker who died after falling into a ravine during a bear encounter.In Levea, a village of about 660 people surrounded by fields in northwestern Greece, several bear encounters were reported in October, while boars frequently roam through the village, said community president Tzefi Papadopoulou. The bears especially had frightened residents.“As soon as they heard a dog bark, they were ready to go out with the gun,” she said.It's similar in the nearby village of Valtonera, 170 kilometers west of Greece’s second largest city, Thessaloniki. “The village used to be without wild animals. In the past, a wolf would appear once in a while,” said Konstantinos Nikolaidis, community president. Now, wild boars, foxes, bears or wolves roam around or even inside the village, he noted.“This has caused concern among all residents. It’s now difficult for a person to walk around outside at night,” he said.The burgeoning wild boar population, meanwhile, has led to calls for the hunting season to be extended.Giorgos Panagiotidis, deputy mayor of the nearby small town of Amyntaio, said boars had been increasingly encroaching on houses. In May, he asked authorities for hunters to be allowed to shoot boars out of season to tackle the problem.It’s an issue that isn’t unique to Greece. In a victory of farmers over environmentalists, European Union lawmakers voted in May to reduce protections for wolves across the EU’s 27 member states. The movement even gained support from European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, whose pony Dolly was killed by a wolf three years ago.Experts note it isn't just the larger number of wild animals that has led to encroachment on urban areas. Many factors are at play, they say, from loss of habitat due to wildfires, to noise disturbances from wind turbines and recreational vehicles, and animals emboldened by dwindling human populations in villages. “There is of course fragmentation of the bears’ habitat, frequently there is drought, there’s a lack of food in the natural environment, there’s a desertification of villages which makes inhabited areas more attractive to bears, so they approach and find food,” said Panos Stefanou, communications officer at Arcturos.Measures to keep wolves and bears at bay have been developed and approved by scientists, said Bakaloudis, the Thessaloniki university professor, including using lights around property, proper disposal of trash and dead livestock and avoiding feeding strays. In exceptional circumstances more invasive methods are used, he said, such as in the case of the wolf attack on the child in northern Greece, where authorities decided to capture and remove the animal.With so many factors contributing to increasing encounters between wild animals and humans, Stefanou cautioned against overly simplistic solutions.“Killing the animals is not what will solve the problem,” he said. Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Nov. 2025

California regulators approve rules to curb methane leaks and prevent fires at landfills

California air regulators adopted new rules designed to reduce methane leaks and better respond to disastrous underground fires at landfills statewide.

In one of the most important state environmental decisions this year, California air regulators adopted new rules designed to reduce methane leaks and better respond to disastrous underground fires at landfills statewide. California Air Resources Board members voted 12-0 on Thursday to approve a batch of new regulations for the state’s nearly 200 large landfills, designed to minimize the release of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas produced by decomposing organic waste. Landfills are California’s second-largest source of methane emissions, following only the state’s large dairy cow and livestock herds.The new requirements will force landfill operators to install additional pollution controls; more comprehensively investigate methane leaks on parts of landfills that are inaccessible with on-the-ground monitoring using new technology like drones and satellites; and fix equipment breakdowns much faster. Landfill operators also will be required to repair leaks identified through California’s new satellite-detection program. The regulation is expected to prevent the release of 17,000 metric tons of methane annually — an amount capable of warming the atmosphere as much as 110,000 gas-fired cars driven for a year. It also will curtail other harmful landfill pollution, such as lung-aggravating sulfur and cancer-causing benzene. Landfill operators will be required to keep better track of high temperatures and take steps to minimize the fire risks that heat could create. There are underground fires burning in at least two landfills in Southern California — smoldering chemical reactions that are incinerating buried garbage, releasing toxic fumes and spewing liquid waste. Regulators found explosive levels of methane emanating from many other landfills across the state.During the three-hour Air Resources Board hearing preceding the vote, several Californians who live near Chiquita Canyon Landfill — one of the known sites where garbage is burning deep underground — implored the board to act to prevent disasters in other communities across the state.“If these rules were already updated, maybe my family wouldn’t be sick,” said Steven Howse, a 27-year resident of Val Verde. “My house wouldn’t be for sale. My close friend and neighbor would still live next door to me. And I wouldn’t be pleading with you right now. You have the power to change this.”Landfill operators, including companies and local governments, voiced their concern about the costs and labor needed to comply with the regulation. “We want to make sure that the rule is implementable for our communities, not unnecessarily burdensome,” said John Kennedy, a senior policy advocate for Rural County Representatives of California, a nonprofit organization representing 40 of the state’s 58 counties, many of which own and operate landfills. “While we support the overarching goals of the rule, we remain deeply concerned about specific measures including in the regulation.”Lauren Sanchez, who was appointed chair of the California Air Resources Board in October, recently attended the United Nations’ COP30 climate conference in Brazil with Gov. Gavin Newsom. What she learned at the summit, she said, made clear to her that California’s methane emissions have international consequences, and that the state has an imperative to reduce them. “The science is clear, acting now to reduce emissions of methane and other short-lived climate pollutants is the best way to immediately slow the pace of climate change,” Sanchez said.

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.