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

11 Foods Experts Say Can Boost Your Brain Health And Help Ward Off Dementia

“Proper nutrition is the foundation upon which our mental acuity and vitality rest."

Chris Stein via Getty ImagesBroccoli contains sulforaphane, which has been linked to reduced inflammation and improved brain health.Most people know which foods to avoid for a healthy heart. Yet, do you often think about the foods you eat and how they affect the brain? It’s been scientifically proven that diet can influence brain health. “The brain represents about 2% of our body weight, but it consumes about 20% of all of our calories,” said Dr. Robert Melillo, a brain researcher, clinician, autism expert, and founder of The Melillo Center in Long Island, New York. “The brain uses more calories than any other organ in our body; what we eat can have a big impact on our brain.”Diet and nutrition are essential to keep the brain healthy. “Proper nutrition is the foundation upon which our mental acuity and vitality rest,” said Dr. Brett Osborn, a board-certified neurosurgeon and the chief of neurosurgery at St. Mary’s Medical Center in Jupiter, Florida. “Just as we care for our bodies through exercise and a balanced diet, nurturing our brains through the right foods is essential for a vibrant and youthful mind.”Although scientists still don’t know what causes Alzheimer’s disease, a type of dementia, many think diet and environmental factors play a role. One study in the journal Neurology, published in November 2022, showed that increasing foods high in flavonoids showed it lowered the chances of developing dementia. “The two major groups of factors driving Alzheimer’s are reduced energetics —blood flow, oxygen saturation, mitochondrial function and ketones — and increased inflammation from various pathogens, toxins and metabolic disease,” explained Dr. Dale Bredesen, a neuroscience researcher and neurodegenerative disease expert. “Diet and environmental factors impact both energetics and inflammation, by multiple mechanisms, and therefore play key roles in both Alzheimer’s and treating cognitive decline.”According to Dr. Philip Gold, the chief of neuroendocrine research and senior investigator at the National Institute of Mental Health, “The key positive environmental influences include exercise, which is extremely important, level of education, and cognitive ‘exercise’ throughout life.” Getting sufficient sleep is also key. “Adequate sleep is also critical because, in part, it is during sleep that the brain repairs itself,” he said. Regularly eating foods that are not good for you can have negative consequences on both the body and the brain. “An unhealthy diet may negatively impact gut microbiota, leading to inflammation and potentially influencing the brain,” Osborn said. “Obese people ― most of whom have an unhealthy gut microbiome ― are at a marked risk for the development of Alzheimer’s dementia,” he added.So which foods are the most beneficial for brain health? The experts break it down below.Claudia Totir via Getty ImagesGood news for fans of avocado toast (and eggs!).AvocadoLove eating guacamole, mashing avocado on toast or dicing it into a salad or rice bowl? Avocados have healthy monounsaturated fats, and according to Bredesen, “These help to reduce vascular disease, and provide excellent energy for the brain, without the problems associated with simple carbs or saturated fats.”BroccoliWhether you like broccoli steamed with melted cheese on top, in stir-fries or as a veggie you sneak into your smoothie, you may want to find more ways to enjoy this crunchy vegetable. “Broccoli is a cruciferous vegetable that contains compounds like sulforaphane, which have been linked to reduced inflammation and improved brain health,” Osborn said. A 2019 study published in the journal Brain Circulation shows sulforaphane is an important antioxidant, and has anti-inflammatory properties that shows potential to protect the nervous system and reduce the burden of pervasive diseases on the body. BlueberriesIf you like to add blueberries to your morning bowl of yogurt, your brain will thank you. “Blueberries contain flavonoids, which are neuroprotective and have been shown to increase neuroplasticity and cerebral blood flow,” said Lynn A. Schaefer, Ph.D, a board-certified clinical neuropsychologist in Long Island. A randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled study published in Nutritional Neuroscience in 2022 showed older adults who consumed wild blueberries had an increase in processing speed, suggesting blueberries may slow down cognitive decline.And these small berries are full of antioxidants, including anthocyanins. Osborn says anthocyanins can “help protect the brain from oxidative stress and inflammation.” He eats blueberries daily, either in a smoothie or on top of a salad.EggsEggs are known for being a good protein option, especially for those who are vegetarian or follow a plant-based diet. And there’s another reason to celebrate eggs: the yolk contains choline. Choline is an essential nutrient and important to produce acetylcholine. “Acetylcholine is a neurotransmitter that is very important for the parasympathetic nervous system, and important for memory,” Melillo explained. Choline is found in different foods, but the highest concentration is in egg yolks. According to Gold, “Critical to normal cognition, acetylcholine neurotransmission is pronouncedly decreased in Alzheimer’s disease.”Claudia Totir via Getty ImagesSalmon is a fatty fish that's high in omega-3 fatty acids.Fatty fishSalmon, sardines and mackerel are examples of fatty fish that contain omega-3 fatty acid. “These essential fats are crucial for maintaining brain health and have been linked to improved memory, mood regulation, and reduced risk of cognitive decline,” Osborn said. Omega-3 fatty acids are also important for creating new nerve cells and protecting brain cells from damage, according to Gold. Leafy greensDoctors and nutritionists encourage patients to eat more leafy greens because they are packed with nutrients. “Leafy greens such as spinach and kale are packed with vitamins, minerals and antioxidants,” Osborn said. “They promote healthy brain function by reducing inflammation and improving cognitive performance.” Magnesium is an important mineral in leafy greens — Melillo says it helps relax the body, lowering blood pressure and the effects of stress. TunaTuna is a low-fat fish and contains the amino acid tyrosine, an important component for producing neurotransmitters in the brain. “Tyrosine is used for making dopamine and norepinephrine, two of the main neurotransmitters in the brain,” Melillo explained. “Dopamine is more of a left brain neurotransmitter and norepinephrine is more of a right brain neurotransmitter.” Tuna also contains high concentrations of creatine. “Creatine facilitates the entry of water into brain and muscle cells to prevent their dehydration,” Gold said. TurmericSpices provide plenty of flavor and as a bonus can have important compounds that the body needs. Turmeric is a common ingredient that is grated or chopped fresh, or used as a powder in curries. “Turmeric, which contains curcumin, is remarkable in that it has anti-inflammatory effects, and also binds to both the amyloid and tau associated with Alzheimer’s disease, so it has multiple mechanisms to support brain health,” Bredesen said.A study published in the journal Molecules in February 2023 showed curcumin to be antimicrobial and neuroprotective in a variety of neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer’s disease. GingerAnother spice used in both fresh and powdered form is ginger. “Ginger is a potent anti-inflammatory agent that has been shown to enhance cognitive function,” Osborn said. “The antioxidant effects are also thought to protect neurons against oxidative stress that underpin neurodegenerative diseases, such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease.”Ginkgo bilobaGinkgo biloba is known to enhance memory and cognitive function. “It is believed to improve blood flow to the brain and protect brain cells from oxidative damage,” Dr. Osborn. “Some research supports its potential benefits in age-related cognitive decline.”Fermented foodsFermented foods, such as kimchi, kefir, kombucha, sauerkraut and yogurt may also be beneficial for the brain. “Research has established that the brain and gut communicate through the nervous system as well as through the immune system,” Schaefer said. “Therefore, changing the bacteria in the gut with probiotics and prebiotics, and not overdoing antibiotics, may play a role in improving brain functioning.”According to Osborn, “Foods that cultivate a healthy microbiome will likely serve as ‘medicines’ to remedy or slow the onset of all age-related diseases, including those affecting the brain.”

Costa Rica Joins Forces in Bid to Host 2031 FIFA Women’s World Cup

Costa Rica has stepped into the global spotlight with a joint bid to co-host the 2031 FIFA Women’s World Cup alongside the United States, Mexico, and Jamaica. The four nations submitted their formal proposal to FIFA last week, marking a significant move for women’s football in the region. The bid, announced in October, positions the […] The post Costa Rica Joins Forces in Bid to Host 2031 FIFA Women’s World Cup appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

Costa Rica has stepped into the global spotlight with a joint bid to co-host the 2031 FIFA Women’s World Cup alongside the United States, Mexico, and Jamaica. The four nations submitted their formal proposal to FIFA last week, marking a significant move for women’s football in the region. The bid, announced in October, positions the countries to welcome an expanded tournament featuring 48 teams for the first time. Officials from the Costa Rican Football Federation highlighted the plan as a way to advance the sport across Concacaf, with matches spread among the hosts. San José stands as Costa Rica’s proposed host city, centered on the National Stadium, which could see games from group stages to key knockout rounds. This effort builds on Costa Rica’s track record in women’s football. The country hosted the 2022 FIFA U-20 Women’s World Cup, drawing international attention and boosting local infrastructure. If successful, the 2031 event would make Costa Rica the first nation to stage all three levels of FIFA women’s tournaments, including the senior competition. That milestone underscores the federation’s push to grow the game at home, where women’s leagues have gained traction in recent years. The proposal outlines 20 potential venues across the four countries, with 14 in the United States, five in Mexico, and one each in Costa Rica and Jamaica. Planners expect the tournament to attract over 4.5 million fans and generate around $4 billion in revenue, setting a new record for women’s sports events. For Costa Rica, this means economic gains through tourism, job creation, and upgrades to facilities like the National Stadium, which seats about 35,000. Federation leaders from the involved countries met in October to launch the bid publicly. They emphasized collaboration, noting how the partnership aligns with FIFA’s goals to expand women’s football in underrepresented areas. Jamaica and Costa Rica, in particular, bring fresh perspectives as smaller hosts, aiming to inspire young players and fans in the Caribbean and Central America. FIFA received the bid book on November 28, the deadline for submissions. With no competing proposals for 2031, the decision appears straightforward. The governing body plans to confirm the hosts at its congress in April 2026. If approved, preparations would ramp up quickly, leveraging lessons from the 2026 men’s World Cup co-hosted by the United States, Mexico, and Canada. In Costa Rica, the bid has sparked discussions among fans and officials. Local clubs and youth programs here see it as an opportunity to elevate women’s teams, which have competed in past World Cups but seek more resources. The national women’s squad, known as Las Ticas, qualified for the 2015 and 2023 tournaments, showing steady progress. The joint hosting model addresses logistical challenges, such as travel between countries. Planners propose efficient transport links, with most venues accessible by short flights. This setup aims to minimize environmental impact while maximizing fan experiences. For Costa Rica, securing a role in the 2031 World Cup would affirm its place in international football. The federation has invested in grassroots initiatives, and this bid extends that commitment. As the process unfolds, eyes remain on FIFA’s verdict, which could bring the world’s top women’s teams to Central American soil. The post Costa Rica Joins Forces in Bid to Host 2031 FIFA Women’s World Cup appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

Locusts and Landmines Threaten Ukraine’s Farmland

Ecosystems have also come under threat from toxic plants whose spread has been difficult to control during the Russian invasion. The post Locusts and Landmines Threaten Ukraine’s Farmland appeared first on The Revelator.

The people of Ukraine won’t soon forget the summer of 2025, a period that saw a significant increase in Russian attacks on the country, including the largest number of drones sent to kill and terrorize Ukrainians. This summer farmers witnessed another invasion of their lands — a locust outbreak that devastated crops across southern and eastern Ukraine. Videos shared with The Revelator show swarms of locusts — each as wide as a human hand — ravaging fields of sunflowers and corn in the Zaporizhzhia, Dnipro, Kherson, and Odesa regions, adding to the dangerous effects of war on these ecosystems. It’s not a coincidence that the regions most affected by the outbreak are among those experiencing some of the worst fighting. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has triggered an environmental crisis, experts say, that is manifesting in the rise of invasive species. “The fields with proper agrotechnical tillage are not conducive to laying eggs for the locusts,” says Andriy Fedorenko, a senior researcher at the Institute of Grain Crops of the National Academy of Agrarian Sciences in Ukraine, who spent several weeks this summer researching the breeding patterns of locusts in the affected regions. “But abandoned agricultural lands and dried-up ponds are ideal.” He says the locusts have gained a foothold in vast farmlands made unusable by the Russian invasion, as well as the area affected by the destruction of the Kakhovka dam. Devastated crops in Ukraine. Photo: Andriy Fedorenko (used with permission) The Soviet-era structure on the Dnieper River in southern Ukraine was bombed on June 6, 2023, causing flooding in several towns on its banks along with mass casualties. Fedorenko observed that the dam’s destruction had disrupted regional ecosystems. The addition of dry weather and the increase in military activity led to a locust outbreak, he says. In photos and videos shared from the field, Fedorenko offered evidence of how flooding created optimal conditions for an outbreak — a conclusion shared by other scientists. “Receding floodwaters exposed large moist areas, optimal spots for egg laying and feeding,” Stanislav Viter, a researcher with the Ukraine War Environmental Consequences Group, wrote in a recent report. He noted that the wetland reed beds, saturated with floodwaters, provided fodder to the pests. “A single locust consumes vegetation equivalent to 1–1.5 times its weight every day,” Viter wrote. Crop fields “flooded and abandoned because of the war as well as on the bed of the former Kakhovka Reservoir” offered just that. Locusts also need favorable climate conditions — very high temperatures — to breed. Climate change may have furthered their recent reproductive success. “The temperature regime in total over two years, particularly in 2024, has also been extremely high compared to previous years,” says Fedorenko. In 2024 the temperatures across the fertile steppes were the highest in the past 10 years. “The average temperature increased by 1.1°C and 3.9°C in the past decade,” he says. ‘Ecocide’ In a statement shared with The Revelator, the Ukrainian government also provided a similar assessment, terming the phenomenon “Russian ecocide” — the destruction of the environment resulting from Russia’s invasion. “After the destruction of the Kakhovka Hydroelectric Power Plant by Russian troops, large areas that had long been at the bottom of the reservoir were freed from water,” wrote Serhii Tkachuk, head of the State Service of Ukraine on Food Security. “These moist and warm soils, with abundant reed vegetation, became an ideal reserve for the development of locusts.”   View this post on Instagram   A post shared by Ukraine (@ukraine) Tkachuk added that this year the government applied pesticides in several regions to address the outbreaks, most notably an 83-square-mile area in the Zaporizhzhia district. Other local reports documented farmers who suffered crop damages ranging from 25% to a near total loss, stretching as far westward as the Zhytomyr region. In the Kherson region, local media reports noted that nearly 10.4 square miles of sunflowers were destroyed. Locusts were also observed in 2024 in the territory of the Slobozhansky village council of the Chuhuiv district of the Kharkiv region. “There are also large areas of uncultivated land and neglected fields due to the war, and the locust invasion can be considered one of the manifestations of ecocide caused by the actions of the Russian Federation not only against Ukraine but also against the environment as a whole,” Tkachuk wrote. The attack on the dam had long-term consequences for agrarian communities, since nearly 90% of the irrigation canals from the dam have dried up. A 2024 report by the International Center for Ukrainian Victory estimated that the loss of irrigation caused cost the country $182 million a year in lost crop production. As climate change triggers a rise in temperatures, Viter’s report warns, new outbreaks could occur in parts of Ukraine that have become “suitable locations” for locusts due to the war. “The same applies to the El Niño phenomenon, with high temperatures and heavy rainfall in most regions of Ukraine,” he wrote. How Wars Can Breed Locusts In his report Viter noted, “Where there is war, there are locusts.” Michel Lecoq, an entomologist specializing in the ecology of locusts and grasshoppers, agrees. “Conflicts can lead to changes in ecological conditions, transforming some areas into breeding and outbreak zones where hopper bands and swarms can form,” he says. For example, he says, an outbreak of migratory locusts occurred in France after World War II and lasted until 1949. “On 20 July 1945, a swarm stretching 20 km in length was observed,” says Lecoq. “Some individuals migrated to England, illustrating the magnitude of the breeding and multiplication that must have occurred at the time — remarkable given that the species is usually very rare in the Landes, its original outbreak area.” Lecoq says these outbreaks developed in France following the abandonment and fallowing of large tracts of land that were no longer cultivated due to the war — much like what’s happening now in Ukraine. “In most outbreak areas, population dynamics is intimately connected to changes of water balance in breeding areas,” he says. The destruction of the dam “exposed numerous areas — previously submerged — that have since become highly favorable for this insect’s reproduction.” Raiding the Breadbasket The rise of locusts and other invasive species is adding to the challenges of the agrarian community, Ukraine’s economic backbone. Ukraine is often known as the breadbasket of the world, producing 10% of the global wheat market — shipping out 6.5 million metric tons every month before the war. Since the Russian invasion, however, Ukraine’s agricultural sector has suffered direct losses of more than $80 billion in infrastructure and production, according to studies. Evidence also suggests that not only has Russia deliberately targeted agricultural equipment, logistics and storage facilities, they’ve also stolen Ukrainian agricultural products. On top of that, landmines now contaminate more than 54,000 square miles of Ukraine — 20% of the country and one of the highest concentrations of the lethal devices in the world, according to the UN.   View this post on Instagram   A post shared by The HALO Trust (@thehalotrust) This assault on agricultural land has had a direct impact on global food security, prompting action and investment from international bodies and countries in prioritizing the demining of Ukrainian territories. However, the scale of the problem, compounded with the continuing and increasing Russian attacks that add to the contamination, means that it could be decades or even centuries, according to one estimate, before the land is once again usable for farming. According to a recent UN Food Insecurity report, the production estimate for 2024-25, for all grains in unoccupied areas, is 13% lower than the previous year. Amidst this a locust outbreak adds to farmers’ woes. Ironically, some restaurants have tried to raise awareness of the threat by addressing it from a different angle: A few chefs in Kharkiv added locusts to their menu, not only because they were widely available but also to dramatically highlight the problem. Farmlands to Battlefields While the worst of the locust outbreak has passed, Tkachuk wrote that the situation in frontline areas continues to be of “particular concern.” Lecoq also advises close monitoring of the areas exposed by the destruction of the dam — “as far as the current conflict allows,” he says — since swarms could potentially invade much larger territories. History shows how locust outbreaks can quickly travel and extend the scope of their destruction. “During the Middle Age, locust swarms originating from the delta regions of the Danube and Volga rivers were known to migrate as far as Western Europe, reaching Germany and even France,” he points out. The invasions in Ukraine could also spread beyond its borders. “Once invasions begin, they can spread rapidly from their original outbreak area… Swarms could potentially invade much larger territories,” Lecoq says. Unfortunately the situation in Ukraine remains unpredictable. Constant military activities, mainly from regular Russian bombings, have prevented farmers in the region from taking preventive or curative action. Conflicts can prevent access to key areas known to regularly host outbreaks when ecological conditions are favorable, Lecoq says. He points to examples of conflict zones in East Africa and the Near East that have hindered the detection of, and access to, the initial breeding and outbreak areas of the desert locust. “This allowed the outbreaks to expand and develop into an upsurge — a near-invasion — which rapidly spread across much of East Africa and extended as far as Pakistan and India,” he says. In Ukraine many of the affected areas are in active combat zones or areas that are still heavily mined, Tkachuk wrote, making it “difficult or impossible to carry out timely preventive and extermination measures.” Paradise, Disrupted Aside from the locusts and Putin’s army, other invasive species have also arrived unwelcome in Ukraine since the start of the war, experts have observed. “One of the war’s delayed consequences could be an outbreak of these alien species — dangerous invasive flora and fauna, the spread of which must be controlled,” Nataliia Pashkevich, senior researcher at the geobotany and ecology department, at the Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences, wrote in a paper for UWEC. “The geography of the areas from which Russian military units are deployed into Ukraine is quite extensive… and an uncontrolled mass of seeds arriving together with equipment and soldiers is destructive for European ecosystems of Ukraine,” Pashkevich wrote. She identified invasive species such as Sosnowsky’s hogweed (Heracleum sosnowskyi) and giant hogweed (H. mantegazzianum) from the Caucasus that can now be found in occupied territories as well as parts of the Carpathian Mountains. The plants are known to spread rapidly and widely and threaten local insects, birds, plants, and fungi with their peculiar physicochemical toxicity, which can even harm humans on contact. The Revelator previously reported that destruction of the dam led to an unlikely outcome — the revival of the “Great Meadows” in Ukraine, which were lost during the rapid Soviet industrialization in the 1950s. While some of these vegetations can serve as a band-aid for war-wounded regions, risks remain. “As invasives spread, they transform the environment to their own advantage, changing key factors — such as humidity, lighting conditions, soil chemistry,” Pashkevich wrote. “Biological invasions recognize no borders.” Republish this article for free! Read our reprint policy. Previously in The Revelator: Cranes in Ukraine: Birds of Joy in a War-Torn Land The post Locusts and Landmines Threaten Ukraine’s Farmland appeared first on The Revelator.

“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.”

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.