GoGreenNation news

How rioting farmers unraveled Europe’s ambitious climate plan

Farmer protests in Nîmes, France, in March. According to reports, large tires were set on fire during the blockade. | Luc Auffret/Anadolu via Getty Images Road-clogging, manure-dumping farmers reveal the paradox at the heart of EU agriculture. In February 2021, in the midst of the deadly second year of the Covid-19 pandemic, Grégory Doucet, mayor of Lyon, France, temporarily took red meat off the menus of the city’s school cafeterias. While the change was environmentally friendly, the decision was driven by social distancing protocols: Preparing one hot meal that could be served to meat-eaters, vegetarians, and those with religious restrictions rather than serving multiple options was safer and more efficient. The response from the French agricultural establishment was hysterical. “We need to stop putting ideology on our children’s plates!,” then-Minister of Agriculture Julien Denormandie tweeted. Livestock farmers clogged Lyon’s downtown with tractors and paraded cows in front of city hall, brandishing banners declaring, “Stopping meat is a guarantee of weakness against future viruses.” An impromptu coalition of livestock producers, politicians, and parents unsuccessfully petitioned the city’s court to overturn the change. It may have seemed a tempest in a teacup — a quintessentially French squabble. But it was a microcosm of European agricultural politics, reflecting the great paradox of European Union (EU) farmers’ relationship to the state. On one hand, farmers are wards of the welfare state, dependent on national governments and the European Union for the generous subsidies and suite of protectionist trade policies that keep them in business. On the other, they are business people who balk at regulations, restrictions, and perceived government overreach. The tension between these positions regularly erupts into farmer revolts when governments attempt to regulate food or farming in the public interest as it might any other industry. EU politicians, meanwhile, often feel the need to kowtow to agribusiness because of its ability to mobilize protesters and voters alike. This year, it has become clear these protests have the power to transform Europe’s future. This past February, three years almost to the day after Doucet’s school lunch announcement, roads around Lyon were again blocked by farmers raging against the French government and the EU. It was one surge in the wave of protests that has swept through Europe in recent months, set off by a litany of demands, including continued subsidies and no new environmental regulations. In short, all the benefits of government with none of the governance. In Paris, farmers traded blows with police at the country’s Salon de l’Agriculture trade fair. In Germany, they tried storming a ferry carrying the country’s economy minister. In Brussels, they rammed through police barricades with tractors. In the Netherlands, they lit asbestos on fire alongside highways. In Poland, they massed along the Ukrainian border to prevent the import of cheap grain. In Czechia, they paved Prague’s streets with manure. The protests have come as the EU seeks to pass a slate of laws as part of its Green Deal, a sweeping climate plan that includes checking the worst harms of industrial agriculture, which takes up more than a third of the continent’s landmass and contributes disproportionately to its ecological footprint. That agenda is colliding with Europe’s longtime paradigm of few-strings-attached welfare for agribusiness. Agribusiness interests have been working to foil the Farm to Fork strategy, the crown jewel of the Green Deal meant to overhaul Europe’s food system, since its inception in 2020. This year, with the specter of right-wing populism looming over upcoming European Parliament elections (part of the EU’s legislative branch), farmers’ protests across the continent have succeeded at not only stalling new sustainability reforms, but also undermining existing environmental regulations. Now, plans to make Europe a global leader in sustainable agriculture appear to be dead on arrival. Dursun Aydemir/Anadolu via Getty Images Farmers dump manure on streets in the EU quarter of Brussels in March. How European agriculture got this way Despite its centrality to European politics and policy, agriculture is a very small industry within the bloc’s economy, making up about 1.4 percent of the EU’s GDP and no more than 5 percent of GDP in any of the Union’s 27 countries. The sector is also one of the biggest recipients of EU funds, with subsidies to farmers and investment in rural development consuming about a quarter of the EU’s budget, on top of often generous national subsidies. Meanwhile, European agriculture’s environmental footprint is vastly disproportionate to its economic contribution. It uses a third of all water on the increasingly arid continent. It’s responsible for 10 percent of the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions, including much of its methane and nitrous oxide, both highly potent greenhouse gases primarily released by animal agriculture. It accounts for about a quarter of global pesticide use, which has been linked to soil and water contamination, biodiversity loss, and a slew of impacts on human health. Of course, we need to eat, and food needs to be produced. But Europe’s monocrop- and livestock-intensive agriculture system is anything but sustainable. Yet the EU continues to pour massive amounts of money into subsidizing an economically negligible sector that is responsible for many of the continent’s environmental problems and that, off the back of those subsidies, organizes to prevent environmental regulations or even conditions on those very subsidies. Many countries around the world generously subsidize food production — including, famously, the United States, where agriculture makes up less than 1 percent of GDP and punches far above its weight politically. But much of the US ag sector’s billions in annual federal payouts comes in indirect forms like subsidized crop insurance, including more than a third of the $24 billion it received in 2021 — and these subsidies make up a much smaller share of the industry’s contribution to GDP relative to agriculture subsidies in the EU. In Europe, decades of government policy have integrated food production into an extensive state welfare framework where, on paper, the good of farmers is equated with the public good. That system emerged from the ruins of World War II, when shoring up farming and food security became an existential policy imperative on the devastated and often starved continent. Post-war policies were designed to secure the food supply, provide farming families with a stable income, and stimulate rural economies in the interest of the public good. European agriculture policy became its own welfare system defined by subsidies and protection from foreign competition. It worked. By 1950, agricultural production in Western Europe had recovered to pre-war levels. When the European Economic Community (EEC), the precursor to the EU, formed in 1957, agriculture was central to the discussions, as economic integration would require dealing with the problem of highly subsidized and protected farming in member states. The answer was the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), launched in 1962, a centerpiece of EEC and later EU policy. An extension of national-level agricultural welfare policies, the goal of the CAP was “to ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural community, in particular by increasing the individual earnings of persons engaged in agriculture.” In other words, rather than using policy to build agriculture into a viable competitive business, the goal was to protect agriculture from the market and commit to a long-term policy of keeping farmers in business. CAP was “from the outset a public policy reflecting highly subjective political ‘preferences,’ not rational commercial interests,” economic historian Ann-Christina Knudsen argues in her book Farmers on Welfare: The Making of Europe’s Common Agricultural Policy. For decades, CAP has been the EU’s biggest budget line. As recently as the 1980s, it made up about two-thirds of the Union’s budget. While bouts of trade liberalization and the rise of other priorities have steadily reduced its relative size, about a third of the EU’s 2021-2027 budget was earmarked for CAP. Over 70 percent of this money is distributed as direct payments to farmers. Since payments are primarily based on farm size, the biggest farms get the lion’s share of that money. Over half of the EU’s 9 million farms produce less than 4,000 euros of products per year and make up a combined 2 percent of Europe’s farm production, while the top 1 percent of farms — those that bring in over 500,000 euros — control 19 percent of all farmland and are responsible for over 40 percent of output. The top 0.5 percent of farms receive over 16 percent of all CAP payments. Lavish subsidies have helped make Europe a net exporter of agricultural products, with early concerns about food security long since displaced by a global thirst for Irish whiskey and Dutch beer and hunger for Irish butter and French cheese. Coupled with decades of government policy incentivizing industrial production methods that favor big operations, such as factory farming and large-scale monocropping, CAP has served to push Europe’s farmers to get big or get out. Between 2005 and 2020, the EU lost over 5 million farms, virtually all of them small operations sold by retiring farmers or those simply unable to compete with their larger neighbors. Large farmers, in turn, have organized into powerful political interest groups that aim to dictate agricultural policy to their governments. Farmers and their political allies pack the EU’s agriculture committee. Lobby organizations like Copa-Cogeca, which represents large farmers’ unions across the EU, and CropLife Europe, a pesticide trade group, pressure governments to entrench the status quo, including maintaining CAP as an ever-open spigot gushing taxpayer money. And where governments are seen as truant in delivering on their promises, cities and nations can be brought to a standstill by blockades of tractors, helping galvanize public opinion and push politicians into acquiescence. Europe’s turn toward environmental protections is clashing with farming interests Today, the growing importance of environmental goals in EU politics has driven a wedge into the sometimes contentious but mostly cozy relationship between farming interests and governments. While EU subsidies do come with some environmental strings attached, such as requirements to protect wetlands or engage in soil-friendly crop rotation, these are often poorly enforced and noncompliance is common. In Europe, much like in the US, agriculture is governed with a lighter touch compared to other industries, a paradigm often known as agricultural exceptionalism. In the Netherlands, for instance, farms have for decades been granted a derogation on nitrogen emissions, allowed to emit more than any other industry. This meant that, over the years, dairy farms and heavily fertilized crop fields leached nitrogen into the soil and water, poisoning rivers and wetlands. In 2019, the Dutch government sought to close the loophole and buy out livestock farmers unable to comply with the restriction. Farmers launched a series of protests marked by the now-ubiquitous use of tractors to block roads and public spaces in a show of force against government bureaucrats. Many felt aggrieved that government, by pushing the resource-intensive industrial farming that had made the Netherlands into an agricultural powerhouse, had helped create the very environmental problems now being blamed on farmers. Peter Boer/Bloomberg via Getty Images A two-week old calf on a dairy farm in Hazerswoude, Netherlands. Livestock farmers have been protesting the Dutch government’s efforts to limit polluting nitrogen emissions from farms. Cities across the country ground to a halt, and the protesters formed a new political party, the far-right-aligned BoerBurgerBeweging (the Farmer-Citizen Movement, or BBB). Last year, it won the country’s provincial elections in a landslide on the back of rural votes as well as broader anti-government and anti-EU sentiment, controlling 20 percent of seats in the Dutch senate. It was a portent of things to come. 2019 was also the year the European Commission, the executive branch of the EU, proposed the Green Deal, which aims to achieve net zero emissions across the EU by 2050 through emissions reduction across all industries, renewable energy and electric vehicle adoption, and reforestation programs. Farm to Fork, the food system component of the plan, calls for dramatically reducing pesticide use and food waste, and promoting more sustainable dietary choices through product labeling and school lunches; independent modeling suggested it could cut agricultural emissions by up to 20 percent and halve biodiversity destruction. Environmental policies are broadly popular with the European electorate, and that plan was arrived at through the EU’s highly bureaucratic — but nonetheless democratically deliberative — process. But because it originated with the European Commission, whose members are unelected, it was seen by some as being mandated by unaccountable functionaries. Farmers bristled at the idea of being told to devote some of their land to biodiversity and nature restoration. Growers of monocrop products like grains and grapes for wine balked at drastic pesticide reductions. The pesticide industry and its lobby saw its profits threatened. But most impacted would be livestock, the sector least able to meet stringent environmental or animal welfare standards. Animal agriculture makes up 40 percent of European agricultural production, releases more than 80 percent of the continent’s emissions from agriculture, and receives more than 80 percent of CAP subsidies, according to a recent study using data from 2013. Immediately, the agricultural lobby began petitioning politicians to delay or do away with the proposed rules, starting with the proposed pesticide reduction measures. At first, EU politicians held in their support for reforms, voting in 2021 to implement Farm to Fork. But as Covid-19, with its disruption of food supply chains, dragged on and Russia invaded Ukraine, raising the specter of a food shortage, ag lobby groups gained new ammunition to fire at what they framed as the Green Deal’s attack on food security and the livelihood of farmers. Attacks on pro-Green Deal politicians escalated, including threats of violence against its staunchest supporters. Bit by bit, political support for Farm to Fork began to erode. By the end of 2023, before most of Farm to Fork had even been implemented, many of its core initiatives were already watered down or abandoned, including pesticide reduction mandates and farm animal welfare improvements. Also declawed was the nature restoration law, which would require EU member states to restore 20 percent of degraded habitats to preserve biodiversity, by calling on farmers to plant tree and flower strips along the edges of fields, for example. Industrial beef and dairy operations were also granted an exemption from industrial emissions targets despite being among the food system’s biggest emitters, responsible for most agricultural methane emissions. Throughout, political allies of agricultural lobbies like the right-wing European People’s Party have celebrated these wins over the specter of “NGO environmental dictatorship.” Farming interests are blocking the development of sustainable alternatives The same groups pushing against environmental regulation in the name of keeping the government out of business have few compunctions about turning to governments to thwart their competition. Meat producers in particular are threatened not only by environmental regulations that would affect them most, as the food system’s biggest emitters, but also by meat alternatives that have the potential to cut into their market share. Cell-cultivated meat, a novel technology that can harvest animal tissue from stem cells rather than slaughtered animals, has not yet received regulatory approval for sale in the EU and remains largely theoretical. That did not stop politicians in Italy, under pressure from agricultural lobby groups, from passing legislation last November banning not just the sale of cellular agriculture products, but also scientific research into the technology. Agriculture Minister Francesco Lollobrigida, a member of the country’s far-right ruling party Fratelli d’Italia (Brothers of Italy), declared cultivated meat a threat to Italian culture and civilization. Soon thereafter, members of the Italian delegation to the EU, joined by representatives from 11 other countries, called on the Council of Europe to “ensure that artificially lab-grown products must never be promoted as or confused for authentic foods,” ostensibly in the public interest. Farming lends itself to populism, which often acts as a cover for cold business calculations. The cultivated meat ban reveals that agricultural lobby group demands are generally about realpolitik rather than a principled position about state intervention — no different from any business that aims to protect its bottom line. Political scientist Leah Stokes, in her book Short Circuiting Policy, has described such policy fights as “organized combat” between interest groups, which tends to favor powerful incumbents over new constituencies aiming to build political support for social or economic change. In Italy, an entrenched and politically well-connected agricultural lobby had the power to write its preferences into policy while proponents of cellular agriculture did not, allowing them to nip potential competition in the bud. Something similar is at work in the unraveling of the EU’s green agenda. Proponents of environmental legislation, while technically having science and public support on their side, were either unprepared or lacked the heart for a fight with the battle-tested farming lobby. All that took place before Europe became engulfed by protests. Then came the tractors. Last December, a proposed cut to diesel subsidies (used to power tractors and other farm machinery) in Germany, which had more to do with the country’s budgetary crisis than with environmental regulations, sent aggrieved farmers into the streets. Dozens of other protests erupted around Europe stemming from particular national issues. But as they grew, they coalesced into a generalized grievance about the failure of government and the EU to sufficiently support farmers, with new environmental policies offering a particularly easy target for ire. Alan Matthews, an Irish economist and preeminent expert on the CAP, recently argued that part of the problem is the changing social capital of farmers: “Instead of being seen as heroic producers of a vital commodity, they are increasingly described as environmental villains and climate destroyers. ... Instead of taking responsibility for these problems, farmers often adopt a defensive position of denial.” The protests have brought farmers of all stripes to the streets, big and small, organic and conventional. Despite their differences and the historic exclusion of small farmers from EU policymaking, most of Europe’s farmers share a common interest in maintaining subsidies and reducing regulation. They also raise some valid points about the contradictions in EU policy, such as in their calls for more protection from foreign competitors that produce with lower standards than in Europe, including livestock produced in jurisdictions with no animal welfare protections or raised using growth stimulants banned in Europe. But this argument is undermined by farmers’ calls to weaken those very standards. By late February, when a massive protest by farmers from across the continent ran amok through the EU quarter of Brussels, politicians across the continent were buckling to farmers’ demand. At the EU, even the watered-down version of the nature restoration law that had passed a vote in EU Parliament despite protests was stalled — perhaps indefinitely — as states including Belgium and Italy withdrew their support. But perhaps most worrying has been the willingness of EU politicians to weaken already existing environmental standards, including loosening environmental conditions and reporting requirements for all farms smaller than 10 hectares. These decisions may have also been motivated by upcoming EU elections. Many Europeans support the farmers’ cause, and as the Dutch case showed, the protests have the potential to galvanize voters to support parties seen as “pro-farmer.” With widespread concern about large gains for right and far-right parties in the EU Parliamentary elections next month, even ostensibly pro-Green Deal politicians, including European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, have been forced to act appropriately deferential to the protesters. Frederick Florin/AFP via Getty Images European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen speaks at the European Parliament on February 6, the same day that she recommended shelving a plan to cut pesticide use as a concession to protesting farmers. Sooner or later, climate change will force a reckoning with farming practices The latest progress report on the EU’s quest for carbon neutrality, released by the European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change amid the protests in January, showed little improvement, especially in agriculture. It called for reductions in production of meat and dairy, higher consumer prices of highly emitting foods, more incentives for farmers to embrace green practices, and, as a political hint, more ambitious policy plans. In short: the opposite of the situation on the ground. Arriving at a viable agricultural policy that marries support for farmers, green goals, and liberal trade policies is a difficult balancing act with few clear-cut solutions. It is unlikely that these could be achieved without continued state and EU involvement in shaping how food is produced in Europe through some mix of protectionism, policy nudges, and regulation. CAP, in one form or another, isn’t going anywhere. But to the extent that it remains primarily a subsidy program, there is no reason why conditions on meeting strict climate and environmental targets should not be massively strengthened, rather than weakened, and enforcement ramped up. And there is no reason not to use policy to steer production away from highly polluting industries like meat and dairy toward less harmful ones. To be in favor of more sustainable farming is not to be against farmers; it is to be against unsustainable farming practices. To allow these two to be conflated is to lose the fight, as the EU is currently doing. After all, to the extent farmers see themselves as businessmen, a sign of business acumen is making a profit within regulatory and market constraints. One thing is certain: Bowing to the demands of special interests whose only interest is maintaining agricultural exceptionalism only precipitates a sooner reckoning with environmental crises, which will force farming to change whether farmers want to or not. The EU, however, seems to be taking marching orders from a parasite of its own creation, abandoning the very notions of public good that led to the creation of its agricultural policies in the first place.

How Some Common Medications Can Make People More Vulnerable to Heat

As climate change brings more intense heat waves, scientists are trying to understand how certain medications interact with the body’s thermoregulation system

Summers are undoubtedly getting hotter. Extreme heat events are predicted to become longer, more intense and more frequent in the coming years—and rising temperatures are already taking a toll on the human body. A published last month by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that heat-related emergency room visits were substantially higher from May to September 2023 than in any year before. And now growing evidence suggests that people who rely on certain medications, notably including antipsychotics, may become especially vulnerable to heat-related illness and adverse side effects as temperatures climb.Studies have established that people with chronic illnesses such as schizophrenia, diabetes and cardiovascular or respiratory disease are generally more vulnerable to overheating—and the medications they need may actually worsen these risks. A 2020 PLOS ONE study found that various commonly prescribed drugs interfere with the body’s ability to perceive and protect itself from heat, increasing the risk of hospitalization. These include diuretics, antipsychotics, beta-blockers, stimulants, antihypertensives and anticholinergic medications (which include Parkinson’s and bladder-control medications). Illicit use of amphetamines and some other drugs, including unlicensed weight-loss drugs such as dinitrophenol, can alter body temperature.“There are a lot of drugs out there that diminish our ability to radiate off heat and cool down,” says Adam Blumenberg, an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Columbia University Medical Center. Emergency room visits for medication-related heat stress or illness, also known as drug-induced hyperthermia, are still relatively rare—but Blumenberg says this will likely change as heat waves and record-breaking temperatures continue to increase.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.The human body’s built-in “thermostat” system works to maintain an internal temperature between 97 and 99 degrees Fahrenheit (36 and 37 degrees Celsius), Blumenberg says, adding that a body temperature of more than 104 degrees F (40 degrees C) can be life-threatening. The brain structure called the hypothalamus helps orchestrate processes to keep that core temperature stable when the weather gets too hot. It acts on the autonomic nervous system, which is responsible for keeping the body in homeostasis via many important processes, including heart rate, blood pressure and respiration. The hypothalamus also regulates sweating and dilates blood vessels in the skin, arms, feet and face to dissipate body heat—and it can cause a sensation of discomfort that prompts the body to seek out shade, water or rest.Experts say many medications associated with drug-induced hyperthermia have one factor in common: they’re anticholinergic. These drugs block cells’ receptors from binding to a neurotransmitter called acetylcholine, which plays an important role in the autonomic nervous system and its heat-adjustment responses, such as perspiration. Blocking its action can cause dry mouth and urinary retention—feeling a need to urinate but being unable to do so. “Some of these medications might cause more heat sensitivity because you’re not sweating,” says Vicki Ellingrod, dean of the University of Michigan College of Pharmacy. “Your body is not making the secretions that it should be making.” Anticholinergics can also causeflushed skin, dilated pupils, blurred vision, fever and an altered mental state. Clinicians have historically used a mnemonic about these symptoms to diagnose anticholinergic poisoning.“A lot of drugs have mild anticholinergic properties, even if that’s not their main intent as a drug,” Blumenberg says. For example, some allergy medications primarily block a cell’s histamine receptors—but they might also bind to other receptors as well and thus still produce anticholinergic effects.Some antipsychotics and neuroleptics (first-generation antipsychotics) can also lead to this and can create a dopamine-blocking effect as well. Dopamine—often called the “feel-good” hormone—influences motivation, memory and even body movement; blocking it can make people feel stiff and cause problems with gait, balance and muscles. One way to decrease those side effects is by pairing an antipsychotic with an anticholinergic—further interfering with acetylcholine and potentially disrupting heat regulation. People who take the antipsychotic drug haloperidol for schizophrenia, for example, are often prescribed an anticholinergic drug called benztropine that decreases some adverse side effects but can, on rare occasions, elevate internal temperature. This shouldn’t happen if people take the appropriate prescribed dose, Blumenberg says, “but it’s possible.”Antipsychotic medications, as well as medications commonly prescribed for bipolar disorder, depression and insomnia, typically act on the brain, which means they could potentially influence the neural pathways that control temperature. Some older antipsychotics are known to occasionally cause a severe reaction called neuroleptic malignant syndrome, which impacts the body’s ability to thermoregulate, Ellingrod notes. “Now, with our newer medications, it’s not as common. But maybe with the impact of the climate, it’s going to be more common,” she says.New research into psychiatric disorders has rapidly improved existing treatments and led to new strategies to reduce some of the adverse side effects; such steps include pairing antipsychotics with other medications. But responses to medications can still vary from person to person. Additionally, “the degree in which [these drugs] actually block the acetylcholine receptors varies between medications, which is why you can see one drug in a class really having this [anticholinergic] effect and another drug in the same class not having the same effect,” Ellingrod says. For example, she adds, the antihistamines that cause more drowsiness tend to be more anticholinergic because they can cross the blood-brain barrier. Newer antihistamines have side effects that are less sedating and very rarely disrupt thermoregulation.A 2023 study in the European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology found that most heat-related adverse effects were reported for medications that act on the nervous system (such as drugs that have strong anticholinergic effects), followed by medications that modulate the immune system. People on heart medications might face thermoregulation complications under high environmental temperatures, too. A 2022 study in Nature Cardiovascular Researchfound that people taking beta-blockers and antiplatelet medications for cardiovascular conditions have a higher risk of experiencing a heart attack in hot weather.“Beta-receptor blockers could decrease the heart rate [and] reduce the blood flow to the skin. That makes people more vulnerable to heat exposure,” says Kai Chen, an assistant professor at the Yale School of Public Health and a co-author of the 2022 study. “The same goes for the [antiplatelet drugs], like aspirin. People taking that could increase core body temperature during passive heat stress, which will make them more vulnerable.”Chen notes that his study is based only on a small group of German participants. But he and his team are conducting studies to analyze these effects in bigger cohorts in the U.S., and they expect results in a couple of years. “We’re trying to see if this enhanced heat effect on these certain medications is due to the medication itself or due to the preexisting conditions,” he says. “If we can confirm through multiple studies at multiple locations with different populations that this is not a mere correlation or association and can maybe indicate a causation, then I think that will change how physicians advise the patients taking the medication during heat waves.”Soko Setoguchi, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School and a co-author of the 2020 PLOS ONE study, says there is a growing effort to understand how drugs are affected by extreme heat—because any medication can have unintended effects, and there is still “limited evidence” on how heat influences various drug interactions.“The precise temperature threshold for these side effects to occur is not explicitly defined in the provided studies, as heat sensitivity can vary based on individual health status, medication dosage and specific environmental conditions,” Setoguchi says, adding that comprehensive data from larger trials are needed.The Food and Drug Administration monitors drugs’ safety even after they are approved, but it has not been tracking heat-related issues associated with medications. “If newly identified safety signals are identified,” the agency wrote in an e-mail to Scientific American, “the FDA will determine what, if any, actions are appropriate after a thorough review of available data.”Scientific American requested comment from 10 major pharmaceutical companies that make antipsychotic medications, but only one, Lundbeck, had responded by the time of publication. A spokesperson said in an e-mail that the company hasn’t “observed any side effects linked to weather conditions such as hot weather in relation to the use of antipsychotics. However, certain labels may mention side effects like flushing, tremor, and hyperthermia, which are linked to [medications that act on serotonin] and can resemble symptoms associated with hot weather.” (Serotonin is a hormone involved in temperature regulation.)Ultimately, some medications that can induce heat-related side effects are still necessary for treating certain conditions. Experts recommend consulting with physicians about potentially adjusting doses or scheduling and alerting a health care provider if any irregular reactions occur as the weather warms. Additionally, people taking medications known to produce an anticholinergic effect should be aware of strategies to keep cool. These can include staying hydrated, carrying fans or ice packs and seeking shade or air-conditioning. Until more research results emerge, clinicians and their patients should discuss best options for prescriptions—and ways to prepare for hotter days.

Lawsuit appears to be in peril for California children harmed by climate change

Eighteen California children sued the EPA, saying U.S. climate policy discriminates against minors. A federal judge indicates he is likely to dismiss the suit.

Eighteen California children who allege the United States’ climate policies intentionally discriminate against minors appeared in federal court this week with their landmark lawsuit in jeopardy.The children, ages 8 through 17, sued the U.S. government and the federal Environmental Protection Agency for violating their constitutional rights. Their attorneys claim the nation’s environmental policies have allowed dangerous levels of greenhouse gases to be released and accumulate in the atmosphere, knowing these emissions will endanger their well-being and future.Although younger generations will undoubtedly experience the worst effects of global warming, children have little, if any, recourse to influence the rules that will shape their future.“Their only redress is not the ballot box, elections or political power,” said Julia Olson, an attorney for Our Children’s Trust, an Oregon-based nonprofit that has filed legal actions over climate change in several states. Aggressive and impactful reporting on climate change, the environment, health and science. But U.S. Department of Justice attorneys this week petitioned a federal judge in California to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing in part that the court did not have the authority to make sweeping public policy changes.Judge Michael Fitzgerald, 64, acknowledged climate change would have profound effects for all Americans, especially those “younger than my age or the president.” But Fitzgerald, who did not make a ruling Monday, said he was inclined to side with the government, noting these decisions should rest with Congress and the executive branch. “There are ways everyone can express their political views,” Fitzgerald said, noting that he volunteered for an elected official as a child.In the coming weeks, Fitzgerald will rule on whether the case can proceed to trial. Ironically, in a case adjudicating the rights of children, the 18 plaintiffs — who live in communities that have been devastated by wildfires, flooding or heat waves — remained silent in the courtroom Monday. Outside of the downtown Los Angeles courthouse, however, the children and their attorneys expressed their desire to be heard. That included Genesis B., a 17-year-old from Long Beach, whose family does not have air conditioning. She has experienced summer temperatures so hot that she waits until sunset to start homework. By then, she’s typically tired and dehydrated.Genesis said she hopes Fitzgerald allows the case to move forward, because she feels the suit is their best chance to make a difference. “I would say just to keep future generations in mind, because this is one planet for everyone,” she said. “One quote I would share with the judge is: ‘We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors — we borrow it from our children.’” “When the EPA looks at the value of a life, it doesn’t treat a child’s life as worth as much [as an adult’s] because they’re not income-earners,” said Julia Olson, an attorney for Our Children’s Trust, an Oregon-based nonprofit that has filed legal actions over climate change in several states. (Dania Maxwell / Los Angeles Times) One of the main arguments of their lawsuit is that the EPA’s analyses of air pollution and greenhouse gases treats the lives of adults as worth more than those of children, according to Olson. “When the EPA looks at the value of a life, it doesn’t treat a child’s life as worth as much because they’re not income-earners,” Olson said outside the courthouse. “All of that economic analysis drives the government’s decisions on whether to control pollution or to allow it. And if it’s cheaper to allow it, then they’ll keep allowing it.”Federal attorneys argued no court ruling would be able to fix previous damage from climate change. But the children and their attorneys argued this case is just as much about mitigating future damage.“This may not automatically reverse the damage,” said Maryam A., a 13-year-old from Santa Monica. “But I think that you, as government officials, should be able to protect all Americans, regardless of age, gender, race, or anything like that. “The fact that you are dismissing our claims because we’re children doesn’t invalidate what’s happening to us. And I feel that sometimes people may not take seriously children sitting in a courthouse. But we’re the same as anyone else.”To reduce levels of heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the atmosphere this century, the plaintiffs argue that the U.S. government needs to cease burning fossil fuels by 2050. The Biden administration has set a lofty goal of completely eliminating the nation’s carbon footprint by 2050, although it will take decades of concrete policy action for the nation to achieve that target.In the meantime, the U.S. and other countries continue to endure record-setting heat, intensifying wildfires and powerful storms. Avroh S., a 14-year-old student from Palo Alto, said extreme storms and flooding at his middle school caused a power outage and prompted an evacuation. For him and other plaintiffs, these recurring natural disasters only reinforced the importance of their case. “Apathy isn’t the answer. Action is,” he said. “If climate change wasn’t happening, I wouldn’t be here. I would much rather be hanging out with my friends or in school.”

This spring, DC-area students are planting native flowers — and activating ‘the solarpunk imagination’

A new initiative invited student groups to design and plant gardens that will promote wildlife, and cultivate their visions for the future.

The spotlight Tending a garden is about as hands-on as climate solutions get. On a basic level, putting plants in the ground helps sequester carbon. Vegetation can reduce stress and tension for the humans around it, and it provides habitat and sustenance for pollinators and other wildlife. Gardens can provide spaces for education, and, of course, sources of food. But the act of designing and planting a green space serves another, more metaphorical purpose: It gives the gardener agency over a piece of the world and what they want it to look like — and a role in conveying of all those aforementioned benefits. That’s the premise behind Wild Visions, a challenge launched in the DMV area (that’s District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia, for the uninitiated) in January. The project invited university students to design gardens with all sorts of visions and themes, then bring them to fruition this spring with native seedlings from Garden for Wildlife — an offshoot of the National Wildlife Federation. For every plant the company sells, it donates one to a community project, said campus engagement lead Rosalie Bull. This spring, around 2,000 went to Wild Visions. “We’ll be creating in total nearly 6,000 square feet of new wildlife habitat in the DMV,” Bull said. “And that’s just this year. We hope to do it year after year.” In Bull’s view, this project has a distinctly solarpunk framing — celebrating a literary genre and art movement that conjures visions of a sustainable future, where nature is as central as technology. Although part of the goal was to get more native flowers in the ground, the challenge also hoped to “activate the solarpunk imagination,” and let students offer their perspectives on what the gardens could accomplish. For instance, a group called Latinos en Acción from American University wanted to focus on monarch butterfly habitat, as a symbol of the migrant justice movement. Others, like the Community Learning Garden at the University of Maryland, were interested in exploring culinary uses of the plants they received, which included sunflowers, black-eyed Susans, milkweed, goldenrod, and aster. “We framed the challenge as a response to the biodiversity crisis, but also as an invitation to be creative and to create habitat and to create space for humans to connect with the more-than-human world,” Bull said. Above all, she and her team wanted the projects to be fun — and to help students feel empowered to participate in solutions. “The solarpunk orientation is recognizing that things are bad. There’s so much cause for grief, despair, anxiety, whatever. But nevertheless, we’re actually just being asked to care more for our communities and to reintegrate ourselves into relationship with the Earth and our local ecosystems.” A photo from Latinos en Acción’s planting day at 11th and Monroe Street Park in D.C. Rosalie Bull Garden for Wildlife hired Bull in September to explore how it might create opportunities for college students in and around D.C. (the company is headquartered in Gaithersburg, Maryland). She visited schools to discuss various possibilities, like fundraising partnerships or educational programs. “Almost every single student group that I spoke to was like, ‘Give us plants, and we’ll plant a garden,’” she recalled. In the end, 14 groups participated from concept to planting day. They each received 150 seedlings for their wild visions, as well as design support and, in some cases, connections to local partner organizations. The challenge culminated on Sunday in an awards ceremony dubbed “The Plantys.” Among the six awards handed out were the cross-pollinator award, for the group that best exemplified collaboration; the wildlife-gardener award, for the design most focused on creating habitat; and the sanctuary-maker award, for the garden that best served as a community space for gathering and reflection. Each prize came with an engraved, handmade ceramic birdbath. The landscape design award went to Students for Indigenous and Native American Rights, or SINAR, from George Washington University. Its garden took the shape of a turtle, modeled after the flag of the Piscataway people. “I think that we saw this as an opportunity to raise awareness of the connection between climate change, Indigenous land stewardship, and even landback — and also to bring awareness to the Piscataway, [whose land] we reside on,” said Julia Swanson, a junior at George Washington and the vice president of SINAR. She and her peers see a general lack of awareness of Indigenous history and the continued presence of Native peoples in the DMV area. “We just really want to rewrite that narrative and make sure everyone is aware that no matter where they go, they’re on someone’s land. And that includes D.C.” Jacob Brittingham, the secretary of SINAR, is a member of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma. He saw this project as an opportunity to engage with Indigenous representation in his new home of D.C. “It’s always great when you get to honor tribal lands and tribal leaders, and the history and culture of people who have fought to be here, but are continuing to be marginalized,” he said. The SINAR team planted its garden at Piscataway Park, working with the Accokeek Foundation, a local organization that tends to the park and manages educational opportunities there. During their planting day on Saturday, the students had the opportunity to learn from Anjela Barnes, a Piscataway leader and land steward who is the foundation’s executive director. Working with Barnes was a highlight for all the members of SINAR. “I felt so lucky to be able to be there and to plant these plants, and be able to ask questions about them and talk directly to Anjela as we were going through,” said Riya Sharma, a senior and president of the group. “It was just such a great relief to go to Piscataway Park and be surrounded by nature — let alone actually using our hands to dig in the soil and work directly with the land.” Swanson added that it felt good to actively do something the group advocates for on a theoretical level — the restoration of native plants and control of invasive species. And the planting itself was joyful. “I’m not exactly a super outdoorsy person,” she said with a chuckle. “But they were so helpful, the people from Accokeek Foundation. And it was just a really fun environment. Everyone was making jokes and collaborating.” The group named its garden “Wawpaney,” which means daybreak or dawn in Nanticoke, a language spoken by the Piscataway and other tribes from the area. The students worked in a plot in front of the park’s educational center, near the parking lot, which will make the garden highly visible to visitors. Ultimately, they’d like to add a plaque sharing the story of the garden and its connection to the Piscataway flag. “That could be a follow-up project,” Brittingham said. Sharma, Brittingham, and Swanson pose with their birdbath at the Planty awards ceremony. Aliia Wilder As the challenge grows in the years ahead, Bull said, she’d like to be able to work with other organizations to offer students the opportunity to incorporate art and other interpretive materials into their gardens. She was heartened by the enthusiastic response not only from student groups, but also from local environmental organizations, like Accokeek Foundation, that wanted to get involved and host gardens. “There are so many components of the planetary crisis that are really abstract, or are difficult to see yourself as actually integral to the solution,” Bull said. “But biodiversity renewal really has to play out at a yard-by-yard level. It has to play out by individual actions.” She echoed Swanson’s sentiments about creating the opportunity to put solutions into practice — in planting gardens, the students can see the impact they can have on people and wildlife in their communities. “They’re not like, ‘Oh, I just learned a horrific fact, that the world is emptying out of life and I have nothing to do about it.’ It’s like, ‘I’m actually already doing something about it.’” — Claire Elise Thompson More exposure Read: a previous Looking Forward newsletter about the movement away from manicured lawns Read: about the history of urban farming and its connections to food justice and resistance (Grist and Earth in Color) Watch / Read: about some of the benefits of planting native species in your garden (The Weather Network) Read: how climate change is affecting the health of native trees, and arborists are working to build diversity and resilience in the urban canopy (Grist) Browse: a step-by-step guide to building a pollinator-friendly garden (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service) A parting shot The Wild Visions cross-pollinator award went to three student orgs from the University of Maryland that teamed up for their planting day: the campus Community Learning Garden, the student chapter of the Audubon Society, and an environmental justice group called 17 for Peace and Justice. “It was honestly so awesome,” said Grace Walsh-Little, a senior and president of the Community Learning Garden. “We had worked really hard to be able to come up with a design plan for every single space in the garden and exactly what we were going to pick, and how we were going to space them and where certain plants were going to go. So it was really nice to see that come into action.” Here are some shots from their planting event on Earth Day. IMAGE CREDITS Vision: Grist Spotlight: Rosalie Bull; Aliia Wilder Parting shot: Rosalie Bull; Sydney Walsh This story was originally published by Grist with the headline This spring, DC-area students are planting native flowers — and activating ‘the solarpunk imagination’ on May 1, 2024.

California protects its Joshua trees. A new bill could allow more to be cut down for development

Environmentalists warn that a California Democrat’s bill “drives a bulldozer” through the state’s new law that protects imperiled Joshua trees from commercial development. But the lawmaker says his impoverished desert region desperately needs the economic boost.

In summary Environmentalists warn that a California Democrat’s bill “drives a bulldozer” through the state’s new law that protects imperiled Joshua trees from commercial development. But the lawmaker says his impoverished desert region desperately needs the economic boost. Democratic Assemblymember Juan Carrillo has mixed feelings about the Joshua trees that are scattered across his sprawling Southern California desert district. “The Joshua tree is an iconic symbol of the high desert,” he told CalMatters. “We have to save that. We have to preserve it.”  At the same time, he’s a former planner for the city of Palmdale, so he knows that efforts to protect the trees will make it harder to build housing and commercial developments in his economically disadvantaged district in the Mojave Desert. It’s with those concerns in mind that Carrillo introduced legislation, Assembly Bill 2443, that would give commercial developers a break from the state’s newly passed protections for one of the state’s most recognizable – and imperiled – trees. Perhaps surprisingly in a state known for its environmental advocacy, the bill last week passed its first committee over the objections of nearly every major environmental group in the state.  The legislation comes on the heels of Gov. Gavin Newsom last summer signing the first-ever law protecting the Joshua trees, which can live for hundreds of years.  An estimated 4 to 11 million Joshua trees grow across the vast area of Southern California, including in the Joshua Tree National Park, according to state estimates. Climate models suggest that by the end of the 21st century, much of the species’ range may no longer be viable due to droughts and wildfires. But the California Fish and Game Commission, which sets state endangered species protections, deadlocked in 2022 on whether to officially declare the species threatened. Last year’s law sets restrictions on how many trees can be cut and requires developers to pay a fee for each tree they remove unless they acquire and restore habitat to mitigate the ecological damage. The fees the state collects are used to replant trees, save habitat and buy new lands for Joshua tree sanctuaries. The law allowed cities and counties to set lower fees for small projects, like housing and public works. Carrillo’s bill would let local governments offer the same benefits to large commercial and industrial projects. Assemblymember Juan Carrillo joins other members of the Assembly in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance at the state Capitol in Sacramento on June 1, 2023. Photo by Rich Pedroncelli, AP Photo The bill now faces an uncertain future as state lawmakers consider the state’s ballooning budget deficit. (The bill’s legislative analysis declares the fiscal impacts of Carrillo’s bill as “unknown.”)  Carrillo’s bill must next pass the Assembly Appropriations Committee, where thousands of controversial – and potentially costly – bills have died in what’s known as the “suspense file.” Meanwhile, the California Building Industry Association, which supports this year’s bill, has donated at least $300,000 to sitting legislators’ campaigns in the past two years. By comparison, the Sierra Club, an opponent, has only donated around $19,000 over the same period. Why environmentalists oppose Joshua tree bill Last year’s bill had grudging support from environmentalists. In 2019, the Center for Biological Diversity petitioned state officials to list Western Joshua trees as “threatened” under the state’s Endangered Species Act, although they are not protected under the federal version of the law. The listing would have led to more stringent prohibition on development over the thousands of square miles where Joshua trees grow in California, including the fast-growing cities of Palmdale, Lancaster, Hesperia and Victorville in Carrillo’s district. The compromise legislation last year provided the first-ever protection for Joshua trees while setting rules for development.   In a recent letter to the legislature, Brendan Cummings, conservation director for the Center for Biological Diversity, called Carrillo’s bill a dangerous piece of legislation that “drives a bulldozer” through last year’s bill and the state’s endangered species law. “The bill is an unnecessary, overbroad, counterproductive, and … would unravel the delicate and carefully-crafted compromise,” he wrote. Importantly, lowering fees for commercial and industrial development projects would eliminate more than half of the state’s funds, Cummings wrote.  Critics say fully protecting the species would create a major barrier to meeting the state’s ambitious goals to expand housing and build renewable energy projects across a range that spans portions of Inyo, Kern, San Bernardino, Los Angeles, Riverside and Mono counties. Carrillo said he supported last year’s legislation. Learn more about legislators mentioned in this story. Juan Carrillo Democrat, State Assembly, District 39 (Palmdale) “But the problems I saw with that was the agreements would only be for single-family, multi-family (home developments) and some public works projects,” Carrillo said. “It did not include commercial and industrial development.”  Carrillo said it’s critical for commercial development to grow alongside his district’s iconic Joshua trees. “Local governments deserve an equal shot at economic development in the region,” said Carrillo who was elected in 2022. “The high desert has been forgotten for decades, and that’s one of the reasons I decided to run for office.”