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.

Accept Deny

GoGreenNation news

California’s young voters must participate if we want a livable climate future

News Feed
Wednesday, September 11, 2024

The first-time voter conversation by California Voices features authors voting for the first time this November to help Californians understand why new voters believe in the importance of casting a ballot. Read more voices on voting. Guest Commentary written by Bella Tarlton Bella Tarlton is an incoming freshman at Cal Poly Humboldt University and lives in Eureka. She was the editor-in-chief of her high school’s journalism program. As a young Californian, I’ve already witnessed firsthand the rapid and dreadful environmental changes unfolding around us. From wildfires and floods to rising sea levels and scorching temperatures, it’s clear the home we love is in danger. I’m deeply concerned about the future of our planet, and I plan to cast my first vote in support of candidates and policies that support a livable earth.  This election year it is more crucial than ever for voters to actively support candidates committed to using their leadership positions to protect our imperiled planet. This is a central reason that I am a registered voter: I believe in doing the most in my power as a citizen to make change happen.  According to the Public Policy Institute of California, only 18% of people ages 18-34 are registered and likely voters. As a part of this younger generation, I hope to encourage the people around me to use this opportunity for their voices to be heard and acknowledge that their votes are essential to our future.  My generation must unite and use our collective voices to spotlight the fundamental need for decisive action to prevent further irreversible harm to our planet from human-caused climate change.  I fear for my future and the future of our children and grandchildren. What will this world look like for them? What will it look like during my own life? If my vote can make a difference in that outcome, then I will use it to make the most of my power, as every young voter should. Supporting a candidate running for office, whether for the country, your state or your local area, means supporting what they support, including solutions they propose to safeguard our home against the perils of climate change.  Protecting ecosystems that serve as carbon sinks — while simultaneously curbing emissions of additional carbon into our atmosphere to sustain a livable future environment — is a priority concern of mine. Restoring and preserving natural ecosystems with a focus on wetlands is paramount, and deserves robust support from policymakers and candidates alike. “Wetland protections are now more important than ever at the state level after the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Sackett v. EPA, which effectively shrunk the jurisdiction of federal wetlands protected by the Clean Water Act at least in half,” said Jennifer Marlow, an assistant professor of environmental law at Cal Poly Humboldt.  Without federal protections, it is our responsibility as voters to elect public officials in California who understand the importance of wetlands as carbon sinks, as well as their role in protecting our communities from flooding events.  This must be done in both local and state elections where our voices matter the most.  Lowering carbon emissions from entering the atmosphere is another important factor in reducing climate impacts to the state. Young voters should support candidates running for office who prioritize funding for research and development of non-fossil fuel and carbon neutral renewable energy infrastructure that can supply all of California’s energy needs.  Voters should also support candidates that have a clear goal of phasing out fossil fuel extraction and usage within the decade. Our state needs to achieve carbon neutrality — and currently, carbon is released at dangerously high rates.  “California sued Big Oil recently, but our state must also stop approving new oil and gas permits,” Marlow told me. “Candidates should support renewed rule-making for regulations that require setbacks — no oil drilling within 3,200 feet of homes, schools, hospitals and other sensitive sites should be permitted.” However we address climate change because the rest of the world is watching. Young voters, especially in California, must serve as role models by voting on how we handle climate policies. If enough young voters make their voices heard, we will collectively set nationwide trends and California will take a leadership role in how we handle the climate crisis.   This starts with supporting candidates who will address climate change without hesitation. Bold and decisive action from our political leaders will ensure California becomes a safe and sustainable home for me and other generations whose future relies on it. It starts with the vote of young Californians like me.

Even if young voters are disillusioned with the American democratic process, they need to participate in our elections and support climate change protections and advocates, writes a Eureka teen.

The first-time voter conversation by California Voices features authors voting for the first time this November to help Californians understand why new voters believe in the importance of casting a ballot. Read more voices on voting.

Guest Commentary written by

Bella Tarlton

Bella Tarlton

Bella Tarlton is an incoming freshman at Cal Poly Humboldt University and lives in Eureka. She was the editor-in-chief of her high school’s journalism program.

As a young Californian, I’ve already witnessed firsthand the rapid and dreadful environmental changes unfolding around us.

From wildfires and floods to rising sea levels and scorching temperatures, it’s clear the home we love is in danger. I’m deeply concerned about the future of our planet, and I plan to cast my first vote in support of candidates and policies that support a livable earth. 

This election year it is more crucial than ever for voters to actively support candidates committed to using their leadership positions to protect our imperiled planet. This is a central reason that I am a registered voter: I believe in doing the most in my power as a citizen to make change happen. 

According to the Public Policy Institute of California, only 18% of people ages 18-34 are registered and likely voters. As a part of this younger generation, I hope to encourage the people around me to use this opportunity for their voices to be heard and acknowledge that their votes are essential to our future. 

My generation must unite and use our collective voices to spotlight the fundamental need for decisive action to prevent further irreversible harm to our planet from human-caused climate change. 

I fear for my future and the future of our children and grandchildren. What will this world look like for them? What will it look like during my own life? If my vote can make a difference in that outcome, then I will use it to make the most of my power, as every young voter should.

Supporting a candidate running for office, whether for the country, your state or your local area, means supporting what they support, including solutions they propose to safeguard our home against the perils of climate change. 

Protecting ecosystems that serve as carbon sinks — while simultaneously curbing emissions of additional carbon into our atmosphere to sustain a livable future environment — is a priority concern of mine. Restoring and preserving natural ecosystems with a focus on wetlands is paramount, and deserves robust support from policymakers and candidates alike.

“Wetland protections are now more important than ever at the state level after the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Sackett v. EPA, which effectively shrunk the jurisdiction of federal wetlands protected by the Clean Water Act at least in half,” said Jennifer Marlow, an assistant professor of environmental law at Cal Poly Humboldt. 

Without federal protections, it is our responsibility as voters to elect public officials in California who understand the importance of wetlands as carbon sinks, as well as their role in protecting our communities from flooding events. 

This must be done in both local and state elections where our voices matter the most. 

Lowering carbon emissions from entering the atmosphere is another important factor in reducing climate impacts to the state. Young voters should support candidates running for office who prioritize funding for research and development of non-fossil fuel and carbon neutral renewable energy infrastructure that can supply all of California’s energy needs. 

Voters should also support candidates that have a clear goal of phasing out fossil fuel extraction and usage within the decade. Our state needs to achieve carbon neutrality — and currently, carbon is released at dangerously high rates. 

“California sued Big Oil recently, but our state must also stop approving new oil and gas permits,” Marlow told me. “Candidates should support renewed rule-making for regulations that require setbacks — no oil drilling within 3,200 feet of homes, schools, hospitals and other sensitive sites should be permitted.”

However we address climate change because the rest of the world is watching. Young voters, especially in California, must serve as role models by voting on how we handle climate policies. If enough young voters make their voices heard, we will collectively set nationwide trends and California will take a leadership role in how we handle the climate crisis.  

This starts with supporting candidates who will address climate change without hesitation. Bold and decisive action from our political leaders will ensure California becomes a safe and sustainable home for me and other generations whose future relies on it.

It starts with the vote of young Californians like me.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Related News

Wildfire smoke could soon kill 71,000 Americans every year

The haze may already kill 40,000 people in the U.S. each year — the same number who die in traffic crashes. Climate change will only make matters worse.

You may live many miles away from a wildfire, but it could still kill you. That’s because all that smoke wafting in from afar poses a mortal risk. The threat is so great, in fact, that any official tally of people killed in a fire most likely is wildly low, given that it counts obvious victims, not those who later died after inhaling its far-flung haze. Los Angeles’ catastrophic blazes in January, for instance, killed 30 people according to authorities, but more like 440 according to scientists, who determined excess deaths at the time were likely due to smoke. As climate change makes such conflagrations ever more catastrophic, that mortality is only going to escalate. A new study in the journal Nature estimates that wildfire smoke already kills 40,000 Americans each year — the same number who die in traffic crashes — and that could rise to more than 71,000 annually by 2050 if emissions remain high. The economic damages in the United States may soar to over $600 billion each year by then, more than all other estimated climate impacts combined. And the problem is by no means isolated to North America: A separate paper also publishing today estimates that 1.4 million people worldwide could die prematurely each year from smoke by the end of this century — six times higher than current rates.  Together, the studies add to a growing body of evidence that wildfires are killing an extraordinary number of people — and are bound to claim ever more if humanity doesn’t rapidly slow climate change and better protect itself from pollution. “The numbers are really striking, but those don’t need to be inevitable,” said Minghao Qiu, an environmental scientist at Stony Brook University and lead author of the first paper. “There are a lot of things we could do to reduce this number.” The core of the problem is desiccation: As the planet warms, the atmosphere gets thirstier, which means it sucks more moisture out of vegetation, turning it to tinder. Scientists are also finding more weather whiplash, in which stretches of extra wet conditions encourage the growth of plants, followed by stretches of extra-dry conditions that parch all that biomass. Droughts, too, are getting worse, making landscapes exceptionally flammable.  Tragically enough, wildfires have grown so intense and deadly in recent years that scientists have been getting bountiful data to make these connections between the haze and cascading health problems downwind. “We totally underestimate the total burden when we don’t consider the smoke that is generated, that can be transported miles and miles away,” said Tarik Benmarhnia, a climate epidemiologist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, who studies the impacts of smoke but wasn’t involved in either of the new papers. “That is by far the biggest factor for mortality and other health issues associated with this type of pollution.” Bigger, more intense infernos are belching smoke not just for days or weeks, but sometimes months at a time. This year’s blazes in Canada, for instance, have consistently blanketed parts of the U.S. in unhealthy air quality. That adds to the haze produced by domestic fires, especially in the West, making for dangerous conditions across the country. Indeed, Qiu’s modeling estimates that annual wildfire emissions from the western U.S. could increase by up to 482 percent by 2055, compared to the average between 2011 and 2020. In the global study published today, researchers estimate that worldwide, this deadly pollution could grow by nearly 25 percent by the end of the century. But it won’t be evenly distributed: Africa could see 11 times more fire-related deaths by that time, compared to Europe and the U.S. seeing one to two times as many. “Africa has the world’s largest burned area due to extensive savannas, forests, and grasslands, combined with long dry seasons,” said Bo Zheng, an associate professor at Tsinghua University in China and coauthor of the paper, in an email to Grist. “This widespread burning drives disproportionate smoke exposure and health impacts.” The major concern with wildfire smoke is PM 2.5, or particulate matter smaller than 2.5 millionths of a meter, which burrows deep into the lungs and crosses into the bloodstream. More and more research is showing this irritant is far more toxic than that from other sources, like industries and traffic. “We have mountains of evidence that inhaling these particles is really bad for a broad range of health outcomes,” said Marshall Burke, an environmental economist at Stanford University, who coauthored the paper with Qiu. “They’re small enough to sort of spread throughout your body and cause negative health impacts — respiratory impacts, cardiovascular impacts. Most, I would say, bodily systems now show responses to air pollution and small particle exposure.” Making matters worse, wildfires aren’t just turning plants into particulates. Those Canadian conflagrations have been burning through mining regions, where soils are tainted with toxicants like arsenic and lead, potentially mobilizing those nasties into the atmosphere. And whenever fires burn through the built environment, they’re chewing through the many hazardous materials in buildings and vehicles. “It burns up cars, it burns up bicycles, it burns up anything that’s in your garage,” Burke said. “That’s incinerated, aerosolized, and then we’re literally breathing cars and bicycles when we are exposed to that smoke.” All told, even brief exposures to wildfire smoke can be devastating, exacerbating respiratory conditions like asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, as well as cardiovascular diseases, since PM 2.5 is entering the bloodstream. Those issues can continue for years after exposure, and other toxins like carcinogens in the haze can cause still more problems that might last a lifetime.  Qiu and Burke’s new modeling estimates that cumulative deaths due to wildfire smoke in the U.S. could reach 1.9 million between 2026 and 2055. That’s a tragic loss of life, but it also comes at a major economic cost of lost productivity. And that doesn’t even include the impacts that are non-lethal, like the degradation of mental health and people missing school and work because of poor air quality. There are ways to blunt this crisis, at least. Reducing carbon emissions will help slow the worsening of wildfires. Doing more controlled burns clears built-up fuel, meaning the landscape might still ignite, but less catastrophically. And governments can help their people get air purifiers to run during smoky days. “If climate change continues apace, but we reduce the amount of fuel loading in our forests and are better able to protect ourselves, then our projections are going to be overestimates of the damages, and that will be a good thing,” Burke said. “These damages are not inevitable.” This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Wildfire smoke could soon kill 71,000 Americans every year on Sep 18, 2025.

Climate
Crisis
Government

The Indiana town suffering under the shadow of a BP refinery: ‘They’ve had way too many accidents’

Whiting residents worried after facility, which has had multiple problems, shut down temporarily after rainIt was the biggest news story around the midwest as the Labor Day weekend approached earlier this month: the unexpected surging price of fuel at the gas station.But for residents of Whiting, Indiana, petroleum has been presenting an altogether bigger problem. Continue reading...

It was the biggest news story around the midwest as the Labor Day weekend approached earlier this month: the unexpected surging price of fuel at the gas station.But for residents of Whiting, Indiana, petroleum has been presenting an altogether bigger problem.A severe thunderstorm moved through north-west Indiana on 19 August, dropping 6in of rain on Whiting, a largely industrial town, flooding streets and temporarily closing schools.The flooding also shut down the BP Whiting Refinery, the largest fuel refinery in the midwest, with a capacity to process around 400,000 barrels of crude oil a day.Residents living around the facility quickly reported oil and gas fumes in their flooded basements, with some reporting feeling dizzy and nauseous. The local conditions, BP admitted, were “severe” with wailing sirens at the facility adding to the climate of fear for residents.“They had a real problem; they had to shut down. Who knows what happened,” says Carolyn Marsh, the administrator of the BP & Whiting Watch Facebook page, who lives within walking distance of the refinery.“The sludge they had to clean out of their system had to go through the water filtration plant [situated on the shore of Lake Michigan]. Who knows what they poured into Lake Michigan.”With the Trump administration dismantling emissions and other regulations for large polluting corporations in July, people living in close proximity to petroleum processing facilities are facing ever greater threats as climate crisis – fueled by burning the same fossil fuels produced by BP and others – promises to deliver increasingly severe storms and weather events.In a summer of relentless rain across parts of the midwest, scientists say heavy, short-lived storm events that can damage key infrastructure are likely to become a more common feature of life in a part of US thought to be relatively safe from the effects of climate crisis.In July, the Chicagoland region that encompasses Whiting recorded a ‘one-in-500-year’ flooding event that saw 5in of rain fall in 90 minutes in one area.According to the World Weather Attribution, climate crisis made storms and weather events that struck the midwest and south last April, killing dozens of people, 9% more intense.A reconnaissance inspection of the BP Whiting refinery conducted by the Indiana department of environmental management on 21 August found that “flood waters left significant oil on the ground”.The following day, the state of Indiana issued BP with a noncompliance notification report having found a “visible hydrocarbon sheen was observed … along 50 feet of [Lake Michigan] shoreline for a period of approximately 3 hours”. A lightning strike from the same storm also temporarily stopped the refinery’s dissolved nitrification floatation process, which reduced its ability to treat wastewater.A BP representative told the Guardian: “The Whiting refinery has detailed plans in place to manage severe weather conditions. We will incorporate learnings from the August rain event as we continue to improve the resiliency of our refinery operations during severe weather.”BP declined to respond to a query asking if the company plans to enact infrastructural upgrades to better protect against future extreme weather events such as floods and storms.Aside from the 19 August flooding causing oil to run into public waterways, BP was also forced to flare large amounts of fuel at the Whiting facility, resulting in huge volumes of damaging CO2, methane and other dangerous gases being released into the atmosphere.Like many of its kind, the Whiting facility has been plagued by issues.In 2008, BP initiated a $4.2bn project at the Whiting refinery to upgrade its infrastructure to process cheaper heavy crude from the Canadian oil sands.But in 2019, the Sierra Club successfully sued BP for violating deadly particle air pollution limits at the Whiting refinery that saw the fossil fuel company pay out $2.75m. BP’s annual revenue stands at $194.63bn.In August 2022, a fire caused the facility to shut down for a week and a half, resulting in a spike in fuel prices for millions of gas consumers around the region. In February 2024, the refinery was shut down again, due to a power outage, while last December, an underground gas pipeline leak was reported which required emergency crews at the scene and prompted a furious response from residents.“We woke up the day after Christmas and it smelled terrible. People were getting sick. There was no word from BP for days,” says Lisa Vallee of Just Transition Northwest Indiana, an environmental nonprofit, who lives in Whiting.“People were really, really upset. We went to our city council, and they said: ‘BP is not telling us anything either.’”Over the course of decades, BP has been responsible for some of the worst environmental catastrophes on the planet. In 2010, BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil rig spill caused the deaths of 11 people and the release of 3.2m to 4.9m barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico across an area the size of Florida over five months. It was the largest environmental disaster in US history and saw BP pay $4bn in criminal charges and a $20.8bn settlement fee. However, the latter generated a $15bn tax deduction for the oil giant.Oil refineries are particularly susceptible to storms and flooding, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists, whose 2015 report also noted that “many of the companies that operate refineries are not disclosing these risks adequately to shareholders and local communities”.And yet, polling suggests climate change is not a concern for Republican voters, with just 12% of those surveyed in one poll last year saying climate crisis should be a top priority for the president and Congress.But fossil fuel conglomerates are not acting to protect communities around their facilities, say environmentalists.“We just cannot trust them,” says Vallee, whose basement flooded for the first time during the 19 August storm. “It’s a really old facility, and that is very frightening.”The Sierra Club settlement saw $500,000 given to the Student Conservation Program non-profit to plant trees around the refinery and in other parts of the community. However, one of the non-profit’s corporate partners is BP.Meanwhile, the refinery continues to loom large for residents of Whiting.“We’re concerned that it’s going to blow up,” says Marsh. “They’ve had way too many accidents over the last few years.

Climate
Conservation
Crisis

How climate change is fueling your sugar addiction

Rising temperatures are feeding America's sweet tooth — and creating a new public health challenge in the process.

In the thick of summer, little else can seem more appealing than the promised respite of an ice cream cone or a chilled can of soda. Turns out that as climate change warms up the planet, that sugary siren song is getting louder: A new study published last week in the journal Nature Climate Change found that as temperatures have gotten hotter, Americans have been buying more artificially sweetened treats.  By examining a national sample of U.S. household consumer purchases between 2004 and 2019, and cross-comparing that with localized weather data, analyzing temperatures, precipitation, humidity, and wind speed, the researchers found that added sugar consumption for Americans has been rising in lockstep with average temperatures. They also used climate projections to predict how these trends could align with future climatic changes, finding that if emissions continue unchecked, excess sugar consumption would soar by the end of the century. It’s the latest piece of evidence in a mountain of research showing how climate change is reshaping what we eat and how we eat it.  “Rising temperatures do make a difference on what you eat and drink,” said Pan He, study author and a senior lecturer in environmental social sciences and sustainability at Cardiff University. “We don’t take much of a second thought on what we eat and drink and how that can be responding to climate change, but in fact, this research shows it would.”  For every 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit of warming, added sugar consumption in U.S. households increased by around 0.7 grams per person per day between 2004 and 2019, the scientists found, with a notable escalation as temperatures hit between 68 to 86 degrees Fahrenheit. That tallies up to more than 100 million pounds of added sugar consumed in a year, when compared to how much of the stuff people ingested 15 years earlier. The spikes in sugar intake were concentrated when temperatures moved between 54 and 86 degrees Fahrenheit, with the highest surges in the form of sugar-sweetened drinks like soda and juice, while frozen desserts followed suit. (Pastries and other baked goods saw notable dips in consumer purchasing trends in the studied periods.) The international research team also predict sugar consumption nationwide could increase by nearly 3 grams a day by 2095 in a future of high greenhouse gas emissions.  This dynamic of rising temperatures feeding our cravings for sweet treats is hardly unexpected. After all, it’s well known that warmer weather makes bodies lose more water, causing people to crave sources of hydration, and that people generally tend to love sweetened things, especially in liquid form. The study charts a new course by connecting two distinct bodies of research by examining exactly what the human body craves when temperatures hike and people need relief.  Read Next What does climate change mean for agriculture? Less food and more emissions. Frida Garza Inequities abound in the data, too. The amount of added sugar consumed during hotter spells is proportionally much higher for low-income American families when compared to the wealthiest households — even up to five times the difference. The health implications of this could be enormous, according to He, including increased risk of diabetes, poor cardiovascular health, obesity, and several cancers, among other complications.  “The importance is why this is so,” added He. She explained that while the researchers didn’t examine the motivating factors behind this in their research, they did find that different working environments associated with social class could be contributing to the economic divide. Lower-income households tend to have occupations where people are working outdoors, exposing them more directly to heat spells.  Other experts aren’t sold on the significance of the new paper. Andrew Odegaard, associate professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at UC Irvine, who was not involved with the research, called the findings and language used by the authors “overstated” and “limited, with extremely strong assumptions.” According to Odegaard, the findings, while of “statistical significance,” are “likely immaterial from a basic clinical nutritional or health perspective.” He argued that the results “also contradict other more granular, comprehensive and representative data on added sugar intake in the US population, which has actually gone down/leveled off.”     To put these findings into clearer context, it helps to understand just how much Americans already consume. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control approximates that the average daily sugar consumption for Americans falls somewhere around 68 grams per person — which is equivalent to roughly 17 teaspoons. Kelly Horton, senior vice president of public policy & government relations at the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, noted that leading health authorities recommend a daily intake “significantly lower than this.” A 2023 study found that though added sugar consumption in the U.S. has declined in recent decades, “many Americans still consume too much,” while another recent study found one in three U.S. youths consume more than 15 percent of their daily total calories from added sugars. “We have seen with this study, and other studies, that Americans, especially children, are consuming way higher amounts in terms of added sugars and their diet,” said Eric Crosbie, a political scientist studying public health policy at the University of Nevada, Reno, who also did not participate in the new paper. Crosbie added that the scientists’ findings share connective tissue with a policy document out last week that has America’s public health community abuzz: the Trump administration’s long-awaited Make America Healthy Again strategy report. “So the way this ties into the MAHA report is there’s actually very little in [the MAHA report] about addressing the reduction of sugar with children. The stuff that is mentioned, it doesn’t seem like there’s a clear plan,” he said. “It’s a lot of lip service. It’s a lot of, they’ll say that they’ll address this, but there’s really no coherent plan or strategy.”  Read Next Trump’s latest USDA cuts undermine his plan to ‘Make America Healthy Again’ Ayurella Horn-Muller Led by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the MAHA document advances earlier statements from the administration about the urgent need to reform the diets of Americans to reduce chronic illnesses in kids. Though the plan calls the average American child’s diet a source of “declining health” and identifies excess sugar consumption as one of the contributing factors behind the issue — “sugar is poison” has been a rallying cry of RFK Jr. this year — food and nutrition experts say the commission’s roadmap lacks regulatory teeth.  For instance, noticeably absent from the plan is any mention of increasing taxes on sugary drinks, a strategy that has been proven to be highly effective in reducing household sugar consumption, according to Crosbie. An excise tax enacted between 2017 and 2018 on sugary beverages in Seattle, Boulder, Philadelphia, Oakland, and San Francisco yielded dramatic results when beverage product purchasing rates in all five cities fell by about 33 percent after retail prices were increased by 33.1 percent in the same timeframe. “That’s a big, big mistake to miss that,” said Crosbie. “A lot of us in the public health community feel the report has been hijacked by the corporations.”  Now, it appears as though the Trump administration may be poised to ignore another contributing factor to the high amount of sugar in Americans’ diets — climate change. Without concerted action to mitigate emissions, the new study demonstrates how the health burden of global warming could be magnified by the growing amount of excess sugar Americans are on track to consume as average temperatures continue to climb.  “We know that climate change is an existential public health threat, but there’s no mention of that in the MAHA report,” said Betsy Southerland, a 30-year veteran of the Environmental Protection Agency and former director of science and technology in the agency’s Office of Water. “The way the MAHA report is designed, it’s very much in line with the anti-climate scientists, the climate deniers in the Trump administration. There’s no mention of greenhouse gas at all.” Sutherland told Grist the report also omits any requests to regulate processed foods or dyes, and multiple pathways to toxic exposure — all of which affect the food supply.  “It’s a spin document,” said Southerland. “Don’t pay any attention to what it says, pay attention to what they do in this administration to protect children’s health.”  This story was originally published by Grist with the headline How climate change is fueling your sugar addiction on Sep 18, 2025.

Climate
Health
Food

Australia announces higher emissions cuts by 2035

The country is one of the world's biggest carbon emitters per capita.

Australia, one of the world's biggest polluters per capita, will aim to cut its carbon emissions by at least 62% compared to 2005 levels over the next decade.The nation - which has faced global criticism for its continued reliance on fossil fuels - had previously pledged to reduce greenhouse gases by 43% by 2030."This is a responsible target supported by science and a practical plan to get there, built on proven technology," Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said when unveiling the new target on Thursday.A landmark risk assessment commissioned by the government this week warned Australia faced a future of increasingly extreme weather conditions as a result of man-made climate change.Setting a target to reduce emissions from 2005 levels is part of Australia's obligation under the Paris Climate Agreement.The new target is in line with an emission reduction benchmark – of between 62% and 70% – that was recommended by the Climate Change Authority, a government body which provides climate policy advice, Albanese said.The prime minister will confirm the commitment at a meeting of the UN General Assembly in New York later this month.The 2015 Paris Climate Agreement saw world leaders agree to keep global temperatures from rising 1.5C above those of the late 19th Century, which is seen as crucial to preventing the most damaging impacts of climate change.Australia, like much of the world, has faced an increasing number of climate-related weather extremes in recent years including severe drought, historic bushfires and successive years of record-breaking floods.Warmer seas have also caused mass bleaching at its world-famous Great Barrier Reef in Queensland and Ningaloo Reef in Western Australia. On Monday, a report into the impact of climate change - the first of its kind in the country - found Australia had already reached warming of above 1.5C and that no community would be immune from "cascading, compounding and concurrent" climate risks.It warned that if the government failed to take stronger action there would be more heatwave-related deaths, poorer water quality due to severe flooding and bushfires, and sea level rises that would threaten 1.5 million people. It also warned of a A$611bn ($406bn; £300bn) drop in property values as a result of such threats.However, Australia's climate agenda and its ambition to achieve net zero emissions by 2050 remain divisive political topics. The country's opposition party, the Liberal National coalition, is internally debating whether it should continue to support the net zero emissions goal, while other parliamentarians - including many independent and Greens MPs - are calling for faster cuts.Opposition leader Sussan Ley on Thursday said the coalition was "dead against" the new target, saying that it failed on both "cost and credibility".Shortly after Albanese's Labor government was elected in 2022 it set higher climate targets, up from the conservative coalition's previous target of between 26% and 28%.It has sought to make Australia a "renewable energy superpower", but has also continued to approve fossil fuel projects. Last week, one of the country's largest gas projects - Woodside's North West Shelf - was given the greenlight to keep operating for another 40 years until 2070, in a move that was widely condemned by climate experts and environmental advocates. Australian Greens Larissa Waters labelled the move a "betrayal" by Labor.

Climate
Energy
Government

Move Over, Green Lawns. Drier, Warmer Climate Boosts Interest in Low-Water Landscaping

America loves its green lawns

LITTLETON, Colo. (AP) — When Lena Astilli first bought her home outside of Denver, she had no interest in matching the wall-to-wall green lawns that dominated her block. She wanted native plants — the kind she remembered and loved as a child in New Mexico, that require far less water and have far more to offer insects and birds that are in decline.“A monoculture of Kentucky bluegrass is not helping anybody,” Astilli said. After checking several nurseries before finding one that had what she wanted, she has slowly been reintroducing those native plants to her yard.Though Astilli was replacing grass just last month, it remains ubiquitous in American yards. It's a tradition that began more than two centuries ago with the landed gentry copying the landscaping of Europe's wealthy, and grass now dominates as the familiar planting outside everything from single-family homes to apartment complexes to office parks and retail malls.“In the absence of simple directions and guidance about what to do with their landscape, they default to lawn because it’s easy,” said Mark Richardson, executive director of the Ecological Landscape Alliance, a nonprofit that promotes sustainable landscaping.Yet that grass is problematic in deserts and any place with limited water, such as the American West, where it won't do well without irrigation. As climate change makes the world hotter and triggers more extreme weather, including drought, thirsty expanses of groomed emerald are taxing freshwater supplies that are already under stress.Enter xeriscaping — landscaping aimed at vastly reducing the need for irrigation, including by using native or drought-tolerant plants. (A utility here, Denver Water, says it coined the term in 1981 by combining “landscape” with the Greek word “xeros,” which means dry, to encourage reduced water use.) Reasons to think about ripping up that lawn The average U.S. family uses 320 gallons (1,211 liters) of water every day, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Nearly a third of that is devoted to outdoor water use. It's even more for people with thirsty plants in dry places.“Potable water is going to become harder and harder to come by,” said Richardson. “Lawn reduction is a fantastic way to limit the use of water in the landscape.”His group isn't keen on grass even in areas like the Northeast or Midwest, where drought and water use aren't as problematic as in the West. Less lawn means fewer pesticides and fertilizers washing into rivers. More native plants mean more rest stops and nesting grounds for pollinators like birds, butterflies and bees, which have faced serious population declines in recent decades.“We can bring nature back into our urban and suburban areas,” said Haven Kiers, associate professor of landscape architecture at University of California-Davis. “Improving biodiversity, creating habitat is going to be a huge thing for the environment.”It's also better for the people using the yard, Kiers said."So many studies show that spending time in nature and gardening, all of this is really good for you,” Kiers said. “When they’re doing that, they’re not talking about mowing the lawn.”Kiers says the only thing more intimidating than an expanse of lawn is an expanse of unplanted dirt. Her top recommendation: take it slowly. It also mitigates the cost, because she said paying someone to do it all at once can cost tens of thousands of dollars.If you’ve got beds along the outside of the house, expand them. If you’ve got a path leading to the front door, put shrubs or flowers on either side of it. If you don’t have shade, plant a tree, and if you’ve got a tree already, create a bed around it. All of these steps reduce the lawn space.There are also financial incentives and rebates in several states to make the transformation more affordable. Sometimes they're offered by a city, county, state, water agency or local conservation organizations, so searching for the programs available with the municipalities and companies near you is a good place to start. Looking for landscaping ideas? “If you want to see good examples of horticultural at its finest, visit a public garden,” Richardson said. Kiers recommended finding a master gardener or a community garden volunteer, because they’ll often provide expertise free of charge.Astilli, the Littleton homeowner, remade her backyard with native plants a few years ago — goldenrod, sunflowers, rudbeckia, purple poppy mallow, Rocky Mountain bee plant and more. Some green lawn remains for her dog and child to romp.Late this summer, she was getting her hands dirty converting the front yard to xeriscaping. With the help of Restorative Landscape Design and its owner, Eryn Murphy, Astilli was replacing grass with plants like bee balm, evening primrose, scarlet gilia, prairie dropseed and tall thimbleweed.In a break from the work, Murphy reeled off a few of the different possible looks for low-water landscaping: a gravel garden with perennials, lush prairie, a crevice or rock garden with tiny plants growing in the stone features, a cactus garden.“Really the sky is the limit in terms of your creativity and your aesthetic,” she said. “It's just about using plants that are supposed to be here.”Murphy said an ever-drier West due to climate change will require people to “do something” as lawns become less and less viable.“Water is going to keep getting more expensive, your lawn is going to stop looking good. You’re going to have to open your eyes and say, what could I do that’s different and better?"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 – Sept. 2025

Climate
Water
Mountains

Suggested Viewing

The Pleasure of Killing Bugs

In the near future, the climate crisis reaches an irreversible point. A nun and a priest meet to talk about the disappearance of insects.

Climate
Fiction
Student

Saving Jaguars and Ourselves

This feature film has already won 3 top awards: Best Environment and Climate Feature, Semi-Finalist, and Quarter-Finalist. Are you ready for an adventure out on the rivers of the Pantanal Wetland, south of the Amazon Rainforest in Brazil? Here we spot wild jaguars like Medrosa and her cubs, giant river otters, and giant storks, while hearing harrowing memories from locals Elizeu, Eduarda, and zoologist Abbie about the climate change fires they have been fighting for 4 years due to severe climate droughts that threaten to destroy this exquisitely beautiful area and the Earth we live on. The Amazon Rainforest is struggling to survive. It affects the global climate. The Pantanal cannot survive without the Amazon and neither can we. We discover that saving jaguars is also saving ourselves and in the process, we discover real solutions and actions that will help save us all. The cinematography and wildlife in this film is described by professionals as stunning, amazing. The Pantanal is the only place in the world where wild jaguars live peacefully with people through ecotourism. These jaguars are known individually by name thanks to the work of Abbie Martin of the Jaguar Identification Project and citizen science efforts of the local community. They are identified by their individual rosette spot patterns. This film includes examples of human--jaguar interaction and communities safely living in close proximity with jaguars. The Pantanal has 5,000 species of wildlife, and is the world's largest wetland, bigger than Florida. United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Gutteres describes the extreme urgency of addressing climate change. Al Gore explains that we have everything we need to solve climate change. What is lacking is political will. This film is includes many practical solutions that everyday people can do to address climate change!

Solutions
Animals
Climate

LEAVES

An academic woman in Texas becomes concerned when a massive red oak in her backyard seems to be ailing, though she isn’t sure why it bothers her so much. At the same time, in her small cottage, her attention to her work is distracted by news reports she sees and hears. They tell in graphic terms of the out-of-control forest fires up and down the West Coast. Her attention is further pulled in the direction of other stories about the worsening conditions of the world’s rainforests which she discovers are disappearing at the astounding rate of 200,000 acres a day. Suddenly such stories are all she seems to hear and see on the radio or television or on her computer. But when she hears/sees a science report about how trees actually communicate with each other, she begins to realize there may be a connection between her tree and what she is learning from the news. She begins to recall a strong connection she herself has with that tree and allows that connection to regrow…..

Pollution
Forests
Inspirational

Resilience

In 1998, a vast power grid serving 5 million people in Canada was destroyed by an ice storm. Twenty years later researchers of that disaster are developing a new kind of resilient power grid. Based in part on the book The Grid and the Village, the film explores how to protect grids and the people they serve from war, terrorist attack, and extreme weather.

Energy
Climate
Crisis

TripleF***

The spirit of a movement that sometimes reminds us of our young revolutionary self, who still believed that he:she could change the world. This green filmed documentary mirrors the global situation and the diversity of climate change related activism.6 continents, 3 dozen filmmakers, countless activists and seasoned scientists. It is not about just one person but about many who stand up. TripleF*** is a documentary on the global climate movement, containing material from six continents (North - and South America, Europe, Africa, Asia and Antarctica), filmed green by cooperating film teams on site. The topic of climate activism itself as a protagonist takes us on a global journey to activists' lives and forms a dialogue within. Why did so many young people became activists? What is life as an activist like, how do they deal with political stagnation, harsh criticism and even threats and why do they still continue? Very personal but not private - to protect the activists' privacy, sensitive topics are woven in as a fictional part. This is the first of 5 Episodes. In this episode, which also stands for itself as a midlength film, the history of climate change related activism is highlighted. In its core spirit of a holistic approach, the project is been realized similarly to its topic of the climate activists' movement: independent, global, green.

Climate
Activism
Documentary

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.