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.

Conservative governments protect more land while socialists and nationalists threaten more species

News Feed
Thursday, September 5, 2024

Jack7_7, ShutterstockThe dire state of biodiversity across the globe suggests not all governments are willing to act decisively to protect nature. Why is that the case, and is a country’s political ideology a factor? Political ideology is a set of beliefs used as the fundamental basis for political decisions. Each country sits somewhere along a spectrum that spans conservative, nationalist and socialist ideologies (among others). This may vary, based on what party is in power at the time. Our latest paper studied the political ideology of the government in 165 nations. We then examined the country’s threatened species numbers and its “protected estate” – land set aside for national parks and reserves. We found conservative ideology increases the likelihood of having more protected areas. Socialist and nationalist ideologies increase the number of threatened animals. This suggests political ideologies on either the left or right may affect biodiversity. Politics playing out in decision-making The political ideology of a government influences its actions in different ways. Conservative ideology promotes the value of traditional institutions and practices. It is strongly linked to capitalism and letting market forces operate freely. Under this way of thinking, nature is largely valued in economic terms. A conservative government may promote protected areas for their economic value – because these create opportunities for money-making ventures such as ecotourism or biodiversity offsetting schemes. Payments for ecosystem services have flourished in socially conservative countries such as Brazil. Socialist ideology advocates that property and resources should be owned by the community as a whole. Socialist governments are more likely to take a human-centred approach, emphasising the value of nature to people. This may include cultural value, human health benefits and intergenerational equity. But socialist governments often improve the conditions of their people through industrial development and heavy use of natural resources. This might explain why these countries tend to have high numbers of threatened species. They also face challenges in establishing and maintaining effective protected areas. Nationalist ideology involves support for one’s own nation and its interests. It connects to nature by linking individual species and places with national identity and territorial security. Nationalism often emphasises individuals and autonomy. The United States is considered strongly nationalist. For example, it rejected the UN Convention on Biological Diversity because it did not meet with its national objectives. Global environmental issues often require diplomatic and economic cooperation between nations through sharing responsibility, knowledge and resources. So nationalist governments may be less likely to participate in cross-border conservation actions such as Peace Parks. With all this in mind, we wanted to know whether a nation’s political ideology and biodiversity outcomes were linked. What we did First, we examined the total number of threatened animals per country, compared with the overall number of animals. Next, we checked what proportion of a country’s land and inland water was protected. Then we classified the ideology of national governments as either nationalist, conservative or socialist. We chose to focus on these three ideologies in keeping with the literature from previous research. Recognising that government decisions typically take about 15 years to flow through to environmental outcomes, we took data on national governments from 2005–09. The ideologies followed by any given nation are not mutually exclusive – one country can have elements of them all. The information in the ideology database is based on the opinions of several experts. Their opinions can differ. So our models included results for all three ideologies at once. Australia, for example, scored higher for conservatism and nationalism than socialism. China, on the other hand, was strongly socialist, slightly nationalist, and not conservative at all. We also considered other important factors such as how strongly a country was viewed as democratic, the degree of inequality, and size of the economy. Finally, we ran a series of computer models. One, on threatened animals, measured the physical threat to biodiversity. The other, on protected areas, measured national commitment to reducing biodiversity loss. What we found Nationalist We found the number of threatened species increases in countries where nationalism is prevalent – but, surprisingly, protected areas were unaffected. New Zealand, Malaysia and Sri Lanka are considered strongly nationalistic. Marketing conservation to nationalist governments and societies might focus on the importance of national natural heritage values. For example, the US is proud of its bald eagle, while New Zealand is synonymous with kiwis. National sporting teams often take on the names of iconic wildlife, such as the Australian Wallabies or the Indomitable Lions of Cameroon. Socialist Prominent socialist ideology was related to significantly more threatened species, and slightly more protected area. China and Belarus, for example, were classed as socialist. So their protected area networks suffer from problems historically levelled at socialist regimes, such as poor planning and enforcement, which often leads to less than ideal conservation outcomes. Conservative Conservative ideology was the most strongly associated with increased protected area estate. However, the numbers of threatened species also increased under these governments. In our study, Australia’s political ideology was mixed but scored higher for conservatism and nationalism compared with socialism. So we found Australia’s approach to conservation actions tends to sit in the centre of available options. The proportion of threatened species is still high (more than 12% of Australia’s species are threatened). In Australia, shades of nationalism can be seen in promoting individual iconic species such as koalas. And conservatism in the use of offsetting to “balance” the impacts of developments. What this means Our work builds on previous research that found fair and transparent governance, inequality between rich and poor, and the strength of a country’s democracy are important in explaining conservation success. Indeed, our research also found stronger democracies, where elections are widely viewed as free and transparent, had more protected areas. But as we outline above, national political ideology also has an influence. By understanding this, we hope conservation advocates can tailor their messages to target the value systems of a government to improve conservation outcomes. Matt Hayward receives funding from the Australian Research Council, New South Wales Environment Trust, Illawarra Coal Pty Ltd, BHP Pty Ltd and a variety of philanthropists. Andrea S. Griffin receives funding from the Australian Research Council, The New South Wales Environmental Trust, Local Land Services, New South Wales Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water Saving Our Species Program (Science and Research), Port Waratah Coal Services, a range of philanthropists, and a range of Biodiversity Conservation NGOs. She is affiliated with the Australian World Wildlife Fund (WWF).Jacob Jones is supported by a Research Training Program Scholarship provided by the Australian Government. Jacob is also supported by a philanthropic donation made to the University of Newcastle.

Conservative, socialist or nationalist, what’s best for biodiversity? The results may surprise you. We studied 165 nations, examining threatened species numbers and the extent of protected areas.

Jack7_7, Shutterstock

The dire state of biodiversity across the globe suggests not all governments are willing to act decisively to protect nature. Why is that the case, and is a country’s political ideology a factor?

Political ideology is a set of beliefs used as the fundamental basis for political decisions. Each country sits somewhere along a spectrum that spans conservative, nationalist and socialist ideologies (among others). This may vary, based on what party is in power at the time.

Our latest paper studied the political ideology of the government in 165 nations. We then examined the country’s threatened species numbers and its “protected estate” – land set aside for national parks and reserves.

We found conservative ideology increases the likelihood of having more protected areas. Socialist and nationalist ideologies increase the number of threatened animals. This suggests political ideologies on either the left or right may affect biodiversity.

Politics playing out in decision-making

The political ideology of a government influences its actions in different ways.

Conservative ideology promotes the value of traditional institutions and practices. It is strongly linked to capitalism and letting market forces operate freely. Under this way of thinking, nature is largely valued in economic terms.

A conservative government may promote protected areas for their economic value – because these create opportunities for money-making ventures such as ecotourism or biodiversity offsetting schemes.

Payments for ecosystem services have flourished in socially conservative countries such as Brazil.

Socialist ideology advocates that property and resources should be owned by the community as a whole. Socialist governments are more likely to take a human-centred approach, emphasising the value of nature to people. This may include cultural value, human health benefits and intergenerational equity.

But socialist governments often improve the conditions of their people through industrial development and heavy use of natural resources. This might explain why these countries tend to have high numbers of threatened species. They also face challenges in establishing and maintaining effective protected areas.

Nationalist ideology involves support for one’s own nation and its interests. It connects to nature by linking individual species and places with national identity and territorial security.

Nationalism often emphasises individuals and autonomy. The United States is considered strongly nationalist. For example, it rejected the UN Convention on Biological Diversity because it did not meet with its national objectives.

Global environmental issues often require diplomatic and economic cooperation between nations through sharing responsibility, knowledge and resources. So nationalist governments may be less likely to participate in cross-border conservation actions such as Peace Parks.

With all this in mind, we wanted to know whether a nation’s political ideology and biodiversity outcomes were linked.

What we did

First, we examined the total number of threatened animals per country, compared with the overall number of animals. Next, we checked what proportion of a country’s land and inland water was protected.

Then we classified the ideology of national governments as either nationalist, conservative or socialist. We chose to focus on these three ideologies in keeping with the literature from previous research. Recognising that government decisions typically take about 15 years to flow through to environmental outcomes, we took data on national governments from 2005–09.

The ideologies followed by any given nation are not mutually exclusive – one country can have elements of them all. The information in the ideology database is based on the opinions of several experts. Their opinions can differ. So our models included results for all three ideologies at once.

Australia, for example, scored higher for conservatism and nationalism than socialism. China, on the other hand, was strongly socialist, slightly nationalist, and not conservative at all.

We also considered other important factors such as how strongly a country was viewed as democratic, the degree of inequality, and size of the economy.

Finally, we ran a series of computer models. One, on threatened animals, measured the physical threat to biodiversity. The other, on protected areas, measured national commitment to reducing biodiversity loss.

What we found

Nationalist

We found the number of threatened species increases in countries where nationalism is prevalent – but, surprisingly, protected areas were unaffected. New Zealand, Malaysia and Sri Lanka are considered strongly nationalistic.

Marketing conservation to nationalist governments and societies might focus on the importance of national natural heritage values. For example, the US is proud of its bald eagle, while New Zealand is synonymous with kiwis.

National sporting teams often take on the names of iconic wildlife, such as the Australian Wallabies or the Indomitable Lions of Cameroon.

Socialist

Prominent socialist ideology was related to significantly more threatened species, and slightly more protected area. China and Belarus, for example, were classed as socialist. So their protected area networks suffer from problems historically levelled at socialist regimes, such as poor planning and enforcement, which often leads to less than ideal conservation outcomes.

Conservative

Conservative ideology was the most strongly associated with increased protected area estate. However, the numbers of threatened species also increased under these governments.

In our study, Australia’s political ideology was mixed but scored higher for conservatism and nationalism compared with socialism. So we found Australia’s approach to conservation actions tends to sit in the centre of available options. The proportion of threatened species is still high (more than 12% of Australia’s species are threatened).

In Australia, shades of nationalism can be seen in promoting individual iconic species such as koalas. And conservatism in the use of offsetting to “balance” the impacts of developments.

What this means

Our work builds on previous research that found fair and transparent governance, inequality between rich and poor, and the strength of a country’s democracy are important in explaining conservation success.

Indeed, our research also found stronger democracies, where elections are widely viewed as free and transparent, had more protected areas. But as we outline above, national political ideology also has an influence. By understanding this, we hope conservation advocates can tailor their messages to target the value systems of a government to improve conservation outcomes.

The Conversation

Matt Hayward receives funding from the Australian Research Council, New South Wales Environment Trust, Illawarra Coal Pty Ltd, BHP Pty Ltd and a variety of philanthropists.

Andrea S. Griffin receives funding from the Australian Research Council, The New South Wales Environmental Trust, Local Land Services, New South Wales Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water Saving Our Species Program (Science and Research), Port Waratah Coal Services, a range of philanthropists, and a range of Biodiversity Conservation NGOs. She is affiliated with the Australian World Wildlife Fund (WWF).

Jacob Jones is supported by a Research Training Program Scholarship provided by the Australian Government. Jacob is also supported by a philanthropic donation made to the University of Newcastle.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Fired workers return to federal agencies — but are put on paid leave

As a result of recent court orders, federal employees are returning to their jobs — but are being put on paid leave. A spokesperson for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) told The Hill that as a result of a court restraining order, it was rescinding the terminations of 419 employees. The spokesperson said that these...

As a result of recent court orders, federal employees are returning to their jobs — but are being put on paid leave. A spokesperson for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) told The Hill that as a result of a court restraining order, it was rescinding the terminations of 419 employees. The spokesperson said that these employees are “mostly in an administrative leave status.” The Hill also obtained a notice that the Commerce Department sent to a staffer it had fired. The notice said that the employee will be reinstated, but that for the time being the employee will be placed in “paid, non-duty status.” The employee will remain on paid leave until the court case is resolved or until the department decides otherwise, according to the notice viewed by The Hill. Employees are subject to being fired again depending on the ultimate outcome of the case. It’s not immediately clear how many people received such notices or whether other agencies were similarly placing employees on paid leave. Tens of thousands of staffers across the government were laid off after a directive to fire workers who were considered “probationary” — those who were relatively new to their agency or who had recently been promoted. The Hill previously reported that hundreds at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which is inside the Department of Commerce, and about 400 at the EPA were let go as part of this purge.  The Commerce Department and the White House did not immediately respond to The Hill’s requests for comment.  The latest news comes after a judge ruled last week that probationary workers had to be reinstated.  However, more firings are expected in the weeks ahead, as the Trump administration seeks additional staff cuts. Another 1,000 workers are slated to be cut at NOAA, while the National Park Service could lose 30 percent of its payroll. 

Am I A Villain?': Influencer Reacts To Backlash Over Taking Baby Wombat Away From Its Mom

The influencer apologized for the "distress" she caused before calling out the Australian government for its anti-wombat policies.

An American influencer issued an apology on Friday after receiving major backlash from a since-deleted video that showed her taking a baby wombat away from its mother, now claiming that she did so out of concern for the animal’s well being.Sam Jones, who formerly described herself as a “wildlife biologist and environmental scientist” to her tens of thousands of followers on Instagram, shared a clip that showed her laughing and grabbing the screaming baby wombat, or joey, running away as the baby’s mother pursues her. She later brings the joey back to its mother. “My dream of holding a wombat has been realised!,” Jones reportedly captioned the video. An American influencer faced major backlash after posting a video showing herself grabbing a baby wombat (not pictured) and carrying it away from its mother.AP Photo/Susan Montoya BryanThe clip sparked widespread outrage, including criticism from Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, who said Jones should try to take a baby away from an animal that “can actually fight back,” the BBC reported.“Take a baby crocodile from its mother and see how you go there,” Albanese said.Australian officials were even considering revoking her visa or banning her from the country, but she has since left Australia voluntarily, the Associated Press reported.On Friday, Jones posted a statement on Instagram, saying that she and the person who shot the video had found the mother and joey “on a road, not moving.”“I was extremely concerned. As wombats are so often hit on Australian roads, I stopped to ensure they got off the road safely and didn’t get hit. However, as is seen from the video, when I walked up to them, the joey did not move or run off,” Jones wrote. “I was concerned it may have been sick or injured, and made snap judgement to pick up the joey and see if this was the case.”She continued, “I ran, not to rip the joey away from its mother, but from fear she might attack me. The snap judgement I made in these moments was never from a place of harm or stealing a joey.” The influencer said she “ensured that the mother and joey did reunite, went off together, and that they got off the road.” Jones added that she “learned” from the situation and is “truly sorry” for the distress she caused. “I have done a great deal of reflection on this situation and have realized that I did not handle this situation as best as I should have.” Jones said. “Regardless, my only intent was to prevent these amazing animals from being hit, and making sure the joey wasn’t in need of immediate care.”In a separate post that same day, Jones asked her followers “Am I a villain?” and said that thousands of people had threatened her life over holding the wombat.Go Ad-Free — And Protect The Free PressThe next four years will change America forever. But HuffPost won't back down when it comes to providing free and impartial journalism.For the first time, we're offering an ad-free experience to qualifying contributors who support our fearless newsroom. We hope you'll join us.You've supported HuffPost before, and we'll be honest — we could use your help again. We won't back down from our mission of providing free, fair news during this critical moment. But we can't do it without you.For the first time, we're offering an ad-free experience to qualifying contributors who support our fearless journalism. We hope you'll join us.You've supported HuffPost before, and we'll be honest — we could use your help again. We won't back down from our mission of providing free, fair news during this critical moment. But we can't do it without you.For the first time, we're offering an ad-free experience to qualifying contributors who support our fearless journalism. We hope you'll join us.Support HuffPostAlready contributed? Log in to hide these messages.She then deflected onto the Australian government for permitting “the slaughter of wombats,” an apparent reference to policies that allow property owners to obtain licenses to kill the marsupials.“While the prime minister wishes harm on me for picking up a wombat, I implore you to take a good, hard look at what is currently being done in Australia surrounding the real issues it faces, the lack of power for tens of thousands of Aussies, and the treatment of its native wildlife.” Jones wrote. “Then decide for yourself, if I, a person who certainly makes mistakes, am really your villain. ”

Former US Sen. Alan Simpson of Wyoming, Who Bridged Partisan Gaps With His Quick Wit, Dies at Age 93

Relatives are remembering former U_S_ Sen_ Alan Simpson of Wyoming as “an uncommonly generous man” who was “gifted in crossing party lines.”

CHEYENNE, Wyo. (AP) — Former U.S. Sen. Alan Simpson, a political legend whose quick wit bridged partisan gaps in the years before today’s political acrimony, has died. He was 93.Along with former Vice President Dick Cheney, Simpson was a towering Republican figure from Wyoming, the least-populated state. Unlike Cheney, Simpson was famous for his humor.“We have two political parties in this country, the Stupid Party and the Evil Party. I belong to the Stupid Party,” was among Simpson’s many well-known quips.A political moderate by current standards, Simpson’s three terms as senator from 1979 to 1997 covered the Republican Party’s rejuvenation under President Ronald Reagan. Simpson played a key role rallying GOP senators around the party’s legislative agenda as a top Senate leader during that time.Simpson was better known for holding his own views, though, with sometimes caustic certainty. A deficit hawk with sharp descriptions of people who relied on government assistance, Simpson supported abortion rights — an example of moderation that contributed to his fade in the GOP.His Democratic friends included Robert Reich, labor secretary under President Bill Clinton, and Norman Mineta, transportation secretary under President George W. Bush.Simpson and Mineta met as Boy Scouts when Mineta and his family were imprisoned as Japanese-Americans in the Heart Mountain War Relocation Center near Simpson’s hometown of Cody, Wyoming, during World War II.After leaving politics, both promoted awareness of the incarceration of some 120,000 people of Japanese ancestry in camps during the war. Mineta, who died in 2022, recalled that Simpson once was asked what was the biggest difference between them as a Republican and a Democrat.“Alan thought about it and he said, ‘Well, I wear size 15 shoes and he wears a size 8 and a half,’” Mineta replied, according to the Heart Mountain Wyoming Foundation.In 2010, President Barack Obama tasked Simpson with co-leading a debt-reduction commission that developed a plan to save $4 trillion through tax hikes and spending cuts. The plan lacked support for serious consideration by Congress.At 6-foot-7, Simpson was literally a towering figure — tallest on record in the Senate until Alabama Sen. Luther Strange, who is 6-foot-9, took office in 2017.Big as Simpson’s shoes were, he had huge ones to fill politically.His father, Milward Simpson, was a governor, U.S. senator and state legislator. His mother, Lorna Kooi Simpson, was president of the Red Cross in Cody and on the local planning commission.“I saw Dad loved politics and the law, and I wanted to do that,” Simpson once said.Simpson was born in Denver in 1931. After a childhood of reckless gun-shooting and vandalism in Cody that put him in danger and in trouble with the law, he graduated from Cody High School in 1949 and the University of Wyoming in 1954.Also that year he married Ann Schroll, of Greybull, Wyoming, and joined the U.S. Army, where he served in the Fifth Infantry Division and the Second Armored “Hell on Wheels” Division in Germany.After leaving the Army, Simpson got a law degree from the University of Wyoming in 1958 and joined his father’s law practice, where he worked for the next 19 years. He was elected to the Wyoming House in 1964 and served there until his election to the U.S. Senate in 1976.A football and basketball athlete at the University of Wyoming, Simpson fondly described politics as a “contact sport.”“I’ve been called everything,” he said in 2003. “What the hell. If you don’t like the combat, get out.”Simpson’s candor made him popular with voters. He also was known as a well-read, hardworking and sometimes hard-nosed politician involved in immigration, veterans’ affairs and environmental issues.He served on the Immigration Subcommittee and the Veterans Affairs Committee, among others.Simpson opposed sentences of life without parole for juveniles and said he supported review of criminal sentences after a period of time.“When they get to be 30 or 40 and they been in the clink for 20 years, or 30 or 40, and they have learned how to read and how to do things, why not?” he told The Associated Press in 2009.By 1995, he’d had enough of the Senate and decided not to run again.“Part of me said I could do this for another three or four years but not six,” he said at the time. “The old fire in the belly is out. The edge is off.”Others of his family in politics and government included his older brother, Pete, a University of Wyoming historian who served in the Wyoming House and was the unsuccessful Republican nominee for governor in 1986. Alan Simpson’s son Colin was speaker of the Wyoming House, and his nephew Milward Simpson directed the state parks department.After leaving the Senate, Simpson taught about politics and the media at Harvard University and the University of Wyoming. In speeches he often urged college students to be politically involved.Simpson is survived by his wife, Ann; his brother Pete Simpson; sons Colin Simpson and William Simpson; and daughter, Susan Simpson Gallagher.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Feb. 2025

"Environmental disaster": Toxic aftermath of Los Angeles fires puts public at risk, experts warn

Local residents are wary of "years of pollution" and misleading government messaging about the wildfires

The unprecedented Los Angeles wildfires nearly two months ago burnt down entire communities and displaced thousands of people have all been contained, but the questions about the extent of the remaining environmental disaster — and its impact on local communities — are still going strong. Almost immediately after the fires broke out, many environmental experts warned that this is an urban wildfire unlike any we’ve seen before. So comparisons to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, other wildfires and major clean-up efforts were bound to fall short, they argued. Months after the first fires broke out, many remain homeless, trying to get back to their communities or acquire access to potable water. For many others, concerns remain about the safety of air and water quality in the larger LA area, the second largest city in the United States. Few people in the area were  immune to the fires: Ross Gerber, a climate activist, early Tesla investor and CEO of Gerber Kawasaki Wealth & Investment Management, was only able to return to his Pacific Palisades home in early March. "It's an environmental disaster, and they [city authorities] are pretending like, ‘Oh, it'll just go away.’ But now it's sitting on our beaches, and it's just like going into the sand, and it's possible that, if they don't deal with this, it could be years of contamination for the LA beaches or more,” Gerber told Salon. Even influential money managers like Gerber felt seemingly helpless in the face of local governments’ response to the wildfires and their immediate aftermath. A car that was destroyed by the Eaton Fire is marked as a non-electric vehicle and not containing large EV batteries on January 29, 2025 in Altadena, California. (Photo by David McNew/Getty Images) "The lifeguards are standing there, and I was like, ‘Dude, you're not going to tell these people to get out of the water?’” he said, describing a recent encounter on a beach. “They're literally wading in toxic s**t. It's all over. And they're like, ‘Yeah, whatever.’ I figured if I started telling people to get their kids out of the water, they would be like, ‘leave us alone.’" Gerber has not been the only one concerned about the local response and on-the-ground application of city guidelines, as public officials scrambled to balance public safety with political considerations. Almost immediately after the fires broke out, many environmental experts warned that this is an urban wildfire unlike any we’ve seen before. “We’re in a race against time to stop disaster after the disaster,” Jane Williams, executive director at California Communities Against Toxics, warned during a webinar hosted by Coalition for Clean Air back on January 16, immediately comparing the Los Angeles wildfires to the impact of 9/11. “[That was] one of the largest public health disasters in the country’s history, and we’re faced with exactly the same problem in Los Angeles now: trying to intercept those exposures.” Local authorities' response and messaging on health risks has been uneven, with many displaced residents struggling to get clear guidelines on the timeline of the cleanup or the status of the potable water in their districts. In Pacific Palisades, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power found trace levels of benzene, a known carcinogen, in several locations and is still working on resolving the contamination, the Los Angeles Times reported. Meanwhile, Altadena communities are still waiting for the final clearance from the state to lift the “do not drink” notices. Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon's weekly newsletter Lab Notes. Many residents have turned to local Facebook groups and private messaging boards in an attempt to navigate local bureaucracies, often making tough, personal calls on what is safe for their families. The popularity of electric vehicles in California and the volume of electric cars damaged in the fires have added another layer of complexity to the cleanup efforts. Steve Calanog, the EPA's incident commander for the Palisades and Eaton fires called it “probably the largest lithium-ion battery pickup, cleanup, that's ever happened in the history of the world,” according to an NBC Los Angeles report. While some beaches that were previously closed due to fire debris have reopened, others remain closed. Health officials advise the public to check on the latest updates from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health or call the beach closure hotline at 1-800-525-5662 for the latest information. When it comes to air quality, officials have mostly warned about avoiding outdoor activities in areas with visible ash or poor air quality, but some safety experts say that many toxic particles could be hard to see. “The particles are so small they can get into the brain,” said Ed Avol, professor emeritus at USC School of Medicine at the same Coalition for Clean Air event. “The ability to focus, pay attention in school, dementia – we’re looking at a range of outcomes. It affects your metabolic system.” While California Governor Gavin Newsom touted “the fastest-ever hazardous debris removal effort in the nation” as of February 25, many questions about the safety of air, water and long-term health impact remain. Newsom’s office did not respond to Salon’s request for comment. “They're driving those trucks right through West LA right through residential neighborhoods,” Gerber said of the ongoing clean up efforts. “The whole idea that they're using any level of safety is absurd." Read more about pollution and the environment

UK government vows to clean up Windermere after sewage criticism

Environment secretary points to measures to stop lake being ‘choked by unacceptable levels’ of pollutionThe government has said it will “clean up Windermere” after criticism over the volume of sewage being pumped into England’s largest lake.The environment secretary, Steve Reed, pledged “only rainwater” would enter the famous body of water in the Lake District, putting an end to the situation where it Windermere was being “choked by unacceptable levels of sewage pollution”. Continue reading...

The government has said it will “clean up Windermere” after criticism over the volume of sewage being pumped into England’s largest lake.The environment secretary, Steve Reed, pledged “only rainwater” would enter the famous body of water in the Lake District, putting an end to the situation where it Windermere was being “choked by unacceptable levels of sewage pollution”.Reed highlighted a range of measures being put in place, including investment from the water company United Utilities. The company, which has been a major polluter of the Unesco world heritage site, recently conceded defeat in its legal efforts to block the public from accessing data related to how much sewage it was dumping into the lake.United Utilities had argued that information on how much phosphorus was being detected at a main sewage treatment works on Windermere did not fall into publicly accessible environmental information.On top of legal discharges made by the company into the important habitat, various investigations have found it also illegally dumped millions of litres of raw sewage into the watercourse.Reed and the water minister, Emma Hardy, will be in Windermere on Monday as part of a “Things Can Only Get Cleaner” tour, to see where investment in water infrastructure will underpin the building of new homes, create jobs and bolster local economies.Reed said: “Windermere is a stunningly beautiful national treasure – but it’s being choked by unacceptable levels of sewage pollution.”He added that the government was “committed to cleaning up this iconic lake” as part of its Plan for Change scheme to upgrade the crumbling water infrastructure and increase economic growth using more than £100bn of private investment.The government was also working “to stop all sewage going into the lake and restore it to its natural beauty”, Reed added.Local groups and organisations have set up a feasibility study to look into what is needed to eliminate sewage discharges into Windermere and draw on successful examples and innovation from around the world.The study has been set up by a coalition that includes United Utilities, the Environment Agency, Ofwat, Save Windermere, Love Windermere, the Lake District national park authority and Westmorland and Furness council.A £200 investment from United Utilities will go towards upgrading 10 wastewater treatment works at Windermere and reducing spills from four storm overflows discharging into the lake to two a year by 2030. Upgrades to the remaining two storm overflows are due from around 2030-35.The private sector money will go towards sewage pipes, water treatment works and nine reservoirs, supporting 1.5 m new homes, 150 large infrastructure projects and power industries such as gigafactories and datacentres.Money from water company fines and penalties has been ringfenced to deliver local water projects, and schemes to clean up waterways are to get up to £11m.Windermere is home to more than 14,000 people and its scenery, rare species and cultural heritage attract seven million visitors a year, generating £750m for the local economy.

Suggested Viewing

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.