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.

From polar bears to polar vortex: How Columbia Sportswear uses nature to protect us from it

News Feed
Monday, March 10, 2025

I’m standing on a corner in Reykjavík, the most flagrantly fragrantly delicious cinnamon roll I have ever had in my hand, and I am pouring sweat. It’s not because I worked hard to get this blissful brauð; it’s a leisurely 10-minute walk from my hotel. It’s not because it’s unseasonably warm; it’s Iceland in late September and a brisk 40 degrees Fahrenheit. It’s because I’m wearing Columbia Sportswear Omni-Heat Infinity baselayers, and I have underestimated their insulating capacities—a mistake I will not make twice. It’s a mistake I shouldn’t have made at all. I spent several days prior testing out breathable membranes and thermal-reflective tech. Columbia’s gold metallic foil—introduced in 2021—helped insulate Intuitive Machines’ lunar lander when it was sent to the actual Moon in February 2024 (and when it launched again in 2025). In space, nobody can hear you sweat, but I’m walking through landscapes that only resemble Mars. And I’m audibly panting. I’ve trudged across the Solheimajokull glacier and been told that Omni-Heat Infinity would be a bit extra for those circumstances, so why I thought I needed it for a casual city stroll, well, I’m feeling the heat from that … I’m taking the heat for that. I packed Omni-Heat Infinity in case temperatures plunged below freezing. I should have stuck with what I’m actually in Iceland to learn about: Omni-Heat Arctic, Columbia Sportswear’s latest insulation system developed through research on polar bear pelts and demonstrated on less carb-focused, more high-output adventures. And what better place to test fabrics than where weather is constantly in flux. Iceland is a land of layers—both wandered and worn. On the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, where the Eurasian and North American plates slowly separate, the country is resigned to be redesigned as the Earth shifts and strains. But because a place is cold doesn’t mean it is unkind. A close-knit society on an unraveling rock, the Iceland I experience is a warm, self-reliant culture that demands warm, resilient clothes. I’ve only been in the country a few hours before I see a new road being freshly graded on top of what looks like last week’s lava. I’ve only been in the country a few more hours before it rains, shines, pours, and then the clouds part. Over the course of one day I’ll be doused winding behind the wind-whipped waterfalls, snake between surging sneaker waves, then scramble up the ashy veins of ice ridges. For every hour that’s brooding and bleak along the black sand coastline, there will be one that’s calm and bright beside thermal rivers. Hiking through the Reykjadalur Valley, we meet Skylar, who is backpacking solo through Europe and proudly shows off his one constant companion: a Columbia Sportswear flannel. Tranquility. Volatility. “If you don’t like the weather, wait five minutes” is a fitting expression and apt alert that you should always approach travel in Iceland with all manner of apparel handy. It’s a saying you’re just as likely to hear in Beaverton, Oregon, home to the Columbia Sportswear Company. Field-testing in Iceland is a first for our host, Director of Communications Andy Nordhoff, but this type of terrain isn’t foreign. Oregon may not be constantly altered by tectonic tension the way Iceland is, but it’s no stranger to maritime influences and geothermal forces. It’s a dramatic backdrop shaped by the slow grind of time and upheaval—weathered smooth in places, rough in others. It’s a landscape that has shaped Columbia since the company was formed in 1938. What started as a hat company is now one tough mother of an outfitter producing apparel and accessories for challenging environments.   And if there’s one thing folks from Oregon and Iceland know, it’s that there’s nothing worse than standing in a coat that has you remembering rather than feeling what it’s like to be warm or dry. To be present in adventures, you can’t be worrying about your clothes. A majority of activities in Iceland—from exploratory tourism to olfactory art collectives—are anchored in cultural reverence for natural resources and capturing the rejuvenating aura of the outdoors. And in a way, that’s the concept behind Omni-Heat Arctic, a solar-capture system. But before I found myself wrapped up in a fleece appreciating untamed beauty, Columbia’s in-house scientists spent years wrapped up in how nature solved the problem of thriving at extremes. Speaking from the Columbia campus, Dr. Haskell Beckham, vice president of innovation, explains how the company set out to “have the warmest jacket without the weight of a giant, damp puffer.” A puffer is, in the most basic terms, a bunch of chopped-up material stuffed in fabric. There’s down, there’s synthetic insulation, but it’s no matter what it’s operating with trapped air, which is low thermal conductivity. Still, humans constantly radiate heat, so the silver metallic Omni-Heat lining was introduced in 2010 to block that loss and reflect it back. Fast forward to 2021, and Omni-Heat Infinity introduced more surface coverage without impacting breathability, now with gold dots to tell the difference. Either way, they stood up to accelerated abrasion testing and real-world comfort testimonials. Plus the off-world partnerships with Intuitive Machines, who spoke the same language of thermal emissivity and solar reflectivity. So, having successfully applied materials science to space, the Columbia lab started thinking about icons of the most extreme environments on Earth. And Arctic inhabitants quickly came up. Digging into scientific literature about polar bears, however, revealed gaps in the understanding of how they survive. So Beckham knew he had to get his hands on a polar bear pelt. After trying the Oregon Zoo, Beckham followed a suggestion to contact the Burke Museum of Natural History at the University of Washington in Seattle. It turned out they did have a pelt that he could check out, like a library book, and he brought it back to the Portland area where it was studied for a year—placed in environmental chambers to measure how it reacted under a solar simulator at various watts per meter squared to mimic what it might see in a cold, yet sunny environment. And that’s when the Columbia team was able to shine some light on how polar pelts absorb light. “We discovered that the fur itself is actually translucent, but not transparent,” explains Beckham. “This lets a degree of solar energy transmission through the fur. And the bear’s skin is pigmented, which helps convert solar energy into heat—just like a black T-shirt in a warm environment feels warmer than a white T-shirt, which reflects solar radiation. With this system the pelt harvested solar energy and converts it to heat, so we set about creating materials and material stacks that have the same effect, which is partially about color and partially about density.” The end result, Omni-Heat Arctic, applies this discovery with thinner outer layers that allow sunlight to penetrate to the insulation (the equivalent of the underfur) and be converted closer to the body. However, unbroken black fabrics wouldn’t work, as the heat collects at the surface and is lost to the environment. It was imperative the solar radiation bypass the shell, go through the insulation, and be absorbed in a lining. For the Arctic Crest Down Jacket, the Columbia lab finally settled on a lining patterned with triangles and dots. Multi-layered engineering allowed the material to have a layer of metal topped with a coating featuring a black pigment. That black coating absorbs the solar radiation and converts it to heat, which is then conducted toward the body, while also protecting that heat from dissipating into the cold. And the team knew they nailed it when beta testers made unprompted comments about how it felt like the warmth amplified after the sun comes out, despite the external temperature.        “It’s a solar-boosted heat … like a biological greenhouse effect,” says Beckham. “That’s why the pattern on the puffer resembles a geodesic dome. On top of that, it’s a warmer jacket even when there’s no sunshine, thanks to how we engineer materials. “The fleece works a bit differently since they don’t have that special low E [low emissivity] coating, but [the high pile and black yarn lining] do work in that way a pelt naturally works.” As straightforward as all that sounds, Beckham’s research produced insight that challenged conventional wisdom, showing it’s not as simple as sunlight transferred through fur onto skin equals warmth. The fur density varies across the pelt, and as little as 3.5 percent of the light sometimes reaches the skin. So, an open question still remains about why the polar bear’s skin is black and what part it versus the fur truly plays in thermal regulation.  This, in a way, makes Omni-Heart Arctic an evolution, even an improvement on the natural means of solar transference. Confirmed by heat flux sensors, control of insulation, shell fabric/coating, lining, and moisture-resistant overlays allowed for garments with up to three times heat retention plus performance-oriented attributes. Core areas needing thicker covering and other areas needing flexibility and breathability can be targeted, while selectively absorbing sunlight promotes warmth without harmful exposure to UV.  Before this trip, my perspective on polar bears boiled down to “If it’s brown, lay down; if it’s black, fight back; if it’s white, say goodnight.” Now, I can appreciate what these creatures and Columbia Sportswear have done to address my mammalian shortcomings. Of course, when you think of a polar bear soaking up the Arctic sun, there’s a good chance you imagine it’s floating on an iceberg. While we didn’t go that far to test our textiles, we did take a sizable amount of moisture into consideration.  The Seljalandsfoss and Skogafoss waterfalls feel like veils between worlds—permeable but formidable. Piercing the multiverse requires preparation, however, and Columbia made sure we were ready with the OutDry Extreme Wyldwood shell jacket and pants. Thrown over the zip-up fleece, OutDry Extreme provided an impervious barrier without forming a moist bubble. With the hydrophobic film-like membrane laminated on the exterior (as opposed to the interior, topped by DWR-coated fabric), I didn’t worry about wet out or wet within. This orientation enhances breathability, allowing the interior fabric to wick perspiration away and more evenly distribute moisture vapor movement so no area gets overloaded. And as someone who constantly runs hot, I can vouch for its effectiveness. The Konos TRS OutDry Mid shoe kept my feet equally dry, stable, and cushioned throughout trail and town (and they remain my rainy day sneaker boots). Having a successful solution doesn’t mean Beckham and his team aren’t looking at new bio-inspired emulations that can improve outdoor apparel, however. The water-repellent properties of the lotus leaf are of interest, as the plant’s microstructure enables water droplets to bead up and roll off effortlessly. This could lead to durable, chemical-free, water-resistant gear. And the structural color of butterfly wings, where microscopic structures rather than pigments create hues, could lead to vivid, long-lasting color without dyes—another sustainable solution. From the 3D printers and swatch prototypes in their fab lab to the computational modeling that allows them to go through infinite combinations of inspirations and materials, the Columbia Sportswear scientists pursue innovation and efficiency.   I’ve now lived in the Arctic Crest Down Jacket and Arctic Crest Sherpa Fleece from one shoulder season to the next, trudging through the most brutally cold winter in a decade. Soon, it will be time to hang them up in favor of windbreakers and lightweight rain shells. In the not-so-distant future, Columbia Sportswear will have cooling technologies to reveal. But the polar vortex surged southward again as I started outlining this piece. Despite the spring-like weather that followed, early-morning hiking and biking isn’t exactly balmy yet. And there are always new latitudes to explore with the right daypack. So, as long as there’s even a hint of crispness or clouds in the years to come, I’m happy to bundle up in biomimicry to help me grin and, well, bear it, warm as a fresh cinnamon roll. The post From polar bears to polar vortex: How Columbia Sportswear uses nature to protect us from it appeared first on Popular Science.

I’m standing on a corner in Reykjavík, the most flagrantly fragrantly delicious cinnamon roll I have ever had in my hand, and I am pouring sweat. It’s not because I worked hard to get this blissful brauð; it’s a leisurely 10-minute walk from my hotel. It’s not because it’s unseasonably warm; it’s Iceland in late […] The post From polar bears to polar vortex: How Columbia Sportswear uses nature to protect us from it appeared first on Popular Science.

I’m standing on a corner in Reykjavík, the most flagrantly fragrantly delicious cinnamon roll I have ever had in my hand, and I am pouring sweat. It’s not because I worked hard to get this blissful brauð; it’s a leisurely 10-minute walk from my hotel. It’s not because it’s unseasonably warm; it’s Iceland in late September and a brisk 40 degrees Fahrenheit. It’s because I’m wearing Columbia Sportswear Omni-Heat Infinity baselayers, and I have underestimated their insulating capacities—a mistake I will not make twice. It’s a mistake I shouldn’t have made at all.

I spent several days prior testing out breathable membranes and thermal-reflective tech. Columbia’s gold metallic foil—introduced in 2021—helped insulate Intuitive Machines’ lunar lander when it was sent to the actual Moon in February 2024 (and when it launched again in 2025). In space, nobody can hear you sweat, but I’m walking through landscapes that only resemble Mars. And I’m audibly panting.

I’ve trudged across the Solheimajokull glacier and been told that Omni-Heat Infinity would be a bit extra for those circumstances, so why I thought I needed it for a casual city stroll, well, I’m feeling the heat from that … I’m taking the heat for that. I packed Omni-Heat Infinity in case temperatures plunged below freezing. I should have stuck with what I’m actually in Iceland to learn about: Omni-Heat Arctic, Columbia Sportswear’s latest insulation system developed through research on polar bear pelts and demonstrated on less carb-focused, more high-output adventures. And what better place to test fabrics than where weather is constantly in flux.

Iceland is a land of layers—both wandered and worn. On the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, where the Eurasian and North American plates slowly separate, the country is resigned to be redesigned as the Earth shifts and strains. But because a place is cold doesn’t mean it is unkind. A close-knit society on an unraveling rock, the Iceland I experience is a warm, self-reliant culture that demands warm, resilient clothes.

I’ve only been in the country a few hours before I see a new road being freshly graded on top of what looks like last week’s lava. I’ve only been in the country a few more hours before it rains, shines, pours, and then the clouds part. Over the course of one day I’ll be doused winding behind the wind-whipped waterfalls, snake between surging sneaker waves, then scramble up the ashy veins of ice ridges. For every hour that’s brooding and bleak along the black sand coastline, there will be one that’s calm and bright beside thermal rivers. Hiking through the Reykjadalur Valley, we meet Skylar, who is backpacking solo through Europe and proudly shows off his one constant companion: a Columbia Sportswear flannel.

Tranquility. Volatility. “If you don’t like the weather, wait five minutes” is a fitting expression and apt alert that you should always approach travel in Iceland with all manner of apparel handy. It’s a saying you’re just as likely to hear in Beaverton, Oregon, home to the Columbia Sportswear Company.

Field-testing in Iceland is a first for our host, Director of Communications Andy Nordhoff, but this type of terrain isn’t foreign. Oregon may not be constantly altered by tectonic tension the way Iceland is, but it’s no stranger to maritime influences and geothermal forces. It’s a dramatic backdrop shaped by the slow grind of time and upheaval—weathered smooth in places, rough in others. It’s a landscape that has shaped Columbia since the company was formed in 1938. What started as a hat company is now one tough mother of an outfitter producing apparel and accessories for challenging environments.  

And if there’s one thing folks from Oregon and Iceland know, it’s that there’s nothing worse than standing in a coat that has you remembering rather than feeling what it’s like to be warm or dry. To be present in adventures, you can’t be worrying about your clothes. A majority of activities in Iceland—from exploratory tourism to olfactory art collectives—are anchored in cultural reverence for natural resources and capturing the rejuvenating aura of the outdoors. And in a way, that’s the concept behind Omni-Heat Arctic, a solar-capture system. But before I found myself wrapped up in a fleece appreciating untamed beauty, Columbia’s in-house scientists spent years wrapped up in how nature solved the problem of thriving at extremes.

Speaking from the Columbia campus, Dr. Haskell Beckham, vice president of innovation, explains how the company set out to “have the warmest jacket without the weight of a giant, damp puffer.”

A puffer is, in the most basic terms, a bunch of chopped-up material stuffed in fabric. There’s down, there’s synthetic insulation, but it’s no matter what it’s operating with trapped air, which is low thermal conductivity. Still, humans constantly radiate heat, so the silver metallic Omni-Heat lining was introduced in 2010 to block that loss and reflect it back. Fast forward to 2021, and Omni-Heat Infinity introduced more surface coverage without impacting breathability, now with gold dots to tell the difference. Either way, they stood up to accelerated abrasion testing and real-world comfort testimonials. Plus the off-world partnerships with Intuitive Machines, who spoke the same language of thermal emissivity and solar reflectivity.

So, having successfully applied materials science to space, the Columbia lab started thinking about icons of the most extreme environments on Earth. And Arctic inhabitants quickly came up. Digging into scientific literature about polar bears, however, revealed gaps in the understanding of how they survive. So Beckham knew he had to get his hands on a polar bear pelt.

After trying the Oregon Zoo, Beckham followed a suggestion to contact the Burke Museum of Natural History at the University of Washington in Seattle. It turned out they did have a pelt that he could check out, like a library book, and he brought it back to the Portland area where it was studied for a year—placed in environmental chambers to measure how it reacted under a solar simulator at various watts per meter squared to mimic what it might see in a cold, yet sunny environment. And that’s when the Columbia team was able to shine some light on how polar pelts absorb light.

“We discovered that the fur itself is actually translucent, but not transparent,” explains Beckham. “This lets a degree of solar energy transmission through the fur. And the bear’s skin is pigmented, which helps convert solar energy into heat—just like a black T-shirt in a warm environment feels warmer than a white T-shirt, which reflects solar radiation. With this system the pelt harvested solar energy and converts it to heat, so we set about creating materials and material stacks that have the same effect, which is partially about color and partially about density.”

The end result, Omni-Heat Arctic, applies this discovery with thinner outer layers that allow sunlight to penetrate to the insulation (the equivalent of the underfur) and be converted closer to the body. However, unbroken black fabrics wouldn’t work, as the heat collects at the surface and is lost to the environment. It was imperative the solar radiation bypass the shell, go through the insulation, and be absorbed in a lining.

  • Blue Columbia Sportswear Arctic Crest puffer laying on green lichen in Iceland, its Omni-Heat Arctic lining exposed
  • Grey and black Columbia Sportswear Arctic Crest Sherpa Fleeces on green and red lichen in Iceland

For the Arctic Crest Down Jacket, the Columbia lab finally settled on a lining patterned with triangles and dots. Multi-layered engineering allowed the material to have a layer of metal topped with a coating featuring a black pigment. That black coating absorbs the solar radiation and converts it to heat, which is then conducted toward the body, while also protecting that heat from dissipating into the cold.

And the team knew they nailed it when beta testers made unprompted comments about how it felt like the warmth amplified after the sun comes out, despite the external temperature.       

“It’s a solar-boosted heat … like a biological greenhouse effect,” says Beckham. “That’s why the pattern on the puffer resembles a geodesic dome. On top of that, it’s a warmer jacket even when there’s no sunshine, thanks to how we engineer materials.

The fleece works a bit differently since they don’t have that special low E [low emissivity] coating, but [the high pile and black yarn lining] do work in that way a pelt naturally works.”

As straightforward as all that sounds, Beckham’s research produced insight that challenged conventional wisdom, showing it’s not as simple as sunlight transferred through fur onto skin equals warmth. The fur density varies across the pelt, and as little as 3.5 percent of the light sometimes reaches the skin. So, an open question still remains about why the polar bear’s skin is black and what part it versus the fur truly plays in thermal regulation. 

This, in a way, makes Omni-Heart Arctic an evolution, even an improvement on the natural means of solar transference. Confirmed by heat flux sensors, control of insulation, shell fabric/coating, lining, and moisture-resistant overlays allowed for garments with up to three times heat retention plus performance-oriented attributes. Core areas needing thicker covering and other areas needing flexibility and breathability can be targeted, while selectively absorbing sunlight promotes warmth without harmful exposure to UV. 

Before this trip, my perspective on polar bears boiled down to “If it’s brown, lay down; if it’s black, fight back; if it’s white, say goodnight.” Now, I can appreciate what these creatures and Columbia Sportswear have done to address my mammalian shortcomings. Of course, when you think of a polar bear soaking up the Arctic sun, there’s a good chance you imagine it’s floating on an iceberg. While we didn’t go that far to test our textiles, we did take a sizable amount of moisture into consideration. 

The Seljalandsfoss and Skogafoss waterfalls feel like veils between worlds—permeable but formidable. Piercing the multiverse requires preparation, however, and Columbia made sure we were ready with the OutDry Extreme Wyldwood shell jacket and pants. Thrown over the zip-up fleece, OutDry Extreme provided an impervious barrier without forming a moist bubble. With the hydrophobic film-like membrane laminated on the exterior (as opposed to the interior, topped by DWR-coated fabric), I didn’t worry about wet out or wet within. This orientation enhances breathability, allowing the interior fabric to wick perspiration away and more evenly distribute moisture vapor movement so no area gets overloaded. And as someone who constantly runs hot, I can vouch for its effectiveness. The Konos TRS OutDry Mid shoe kept my feet equally dry, stable, and cushioned throughout trail and town (and they remain my rainy day sneaker boots).

Having a successful solution doesn’t mean Beckham and his team aren’t looking at new bio-inspired emulations that can improve outdoor apparel, however. The water-repellent properties of the lotus leaf are of interest, as the plant’s microstructure enables water droplets to bead up and roll off effortlessly. This could lead to durable, chemical-free, water-resistant gear. And the structural color of butterfly wings, where microscopic structures rather than pigments create hues, could lead to vivid, long-lasting color without dyes—another sustainable solution. From the 3D printers and swatch prototypes in their fab lab to the computational modeling that allows them to go through infinite combinations of inspirations and materials, the Columbia Sportswear scientists pursue innovation and efficiency.  

I’ve now lived in the Arctic Crest Down Jacket and Arctic Crest Sherpa Fleece from one shoulder season to the next, trudging through the most brutally cold winter in a decade. Soon, it will be time to hang them up in favor of windbreakers and lightweight rain shells. In the not-so-distant future, Columbia Sportswear will have cooling technologies to reveal. But the polar vortex surged southward again as I started outlining this piece. Despite the spring-like weather that followed, early-morning hiking and biking isn’t exactly balmy yet. And there are always new latitudes to explore with the right daypack. So, as long as there’s even a hint of crispness or clouds in the years to come, I’m happy to bundle up in biomimicry to help me grin and, well, bear it, warm as a fresh cinnamon roll.

The post From polar bears to polar vortex: How Columbia Sportswear uses nature to protect us from it appeared first on Popular Science.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Birdgirl' marks decade of making nature accessible

Dr Mya-Rose Craig marks 10 years of Black2Nature and calls for wider access to nature across the UK.

'Birdgirl' marks decade of making nature accessibleOliver Edwards PhotographyDr Mya-Rose Craig says Black2Nature has helped hundreds of children over the past decadeAn environmental campaigner who founded a charity to help children from ethnic minorities access nature says the cultural landscape has "shifted" since she began her work a decade ago.Dr Mya-Rose Craig, 23, nicknamed 'Birdgirl', set up Black2Nature at the age of 13 to connect more children from Visible Minority Ethnic (VME) communities with the outdoors.Reflecting on the charity's 10th anniversary, she said the current environment feels "very different"; although there is still "a lot of progress to be made". "It's amazing to look back over the past decade of all the hundreds of kids that we've worked with," she said. "All the different activities, the lives we've changed."Dr Craig said that when she first began speaking about the lack of diversity in nature spaces, the reaction was markedly different."I remember when I first started having these conversations, people didn't want to have them with me," she said."It made them very uncomfortable. I think they didn't want to acknowledge that there was exclusion and racism. So much has shifted in the past decade. "For me, that is really exciting, because I think that is how you build a more sustainable environment, by getting everyone on board."Oliver Edwards PhotographyDr Craig says she has noticed a shift in the cultural landscape over the past decadeBlack2Nature runs camps, day trips and outdoor adventures designed to increase access for VME children, young people and families.The organisation also campaigns for greater racial diversity in the environmental sector and for equal access to green spaces.Dr Craig, who is from the Chew Valley in Somerset, said the idea to set up the charity came from a "very deep love of nature and the environment.""I strongly felt that nature was a very important resource for other kids to have access to in terms of mental and physical health," she said."A lot of these kids have never been to the countryside, so it's about breaking down those assumptions."For a lot of kids that we work with, they feel like the countryside is not a space for them."Research from the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) shows that people from ethnic minorities have an average of 11 times less access to green space than others in society.For parents such as Kumar Sultana, 42, from Bristol, Black2Nature has provided opportunities her family would have otherwise missed."I'm a low-income parent and I can't afford things like camping," she explained.She added the activities have helped her children connect with the natural world and learn about sustainability.Black2NatureBlack2Nature runs camps and adventure trips for childrenMs Sultana, who has a Pakistani background, said she did not have those experiences growing up."We don't have camping in our culture and money is also a barrier to accessing it," she said."Some of the places we've been, I couldn't afford to take my kids."Black2NatureThe charity campaigns for equal access to green spacesTo mark its 10th anniversary, the charity will host a conference at the University of the West of England (UWE) on Wednesday, focusing on race equity, education and career pathways in the environmental sector.Looking ahead, Dr Craig said she hopes to see environmental organisations engage more meaningfully with diverse communities and for young people to be made aware of career prospects in that sector.She also wants wider access to nature across the UK."I'd love to see better quality of green spaces in cities. There's very often a class divide in terms of green spaces, where nicer neighbourhoods have nicer parks."

Labor’s nature law overhaul contains wins – but we should watch for gremlins in the details | Adam Morton

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act changes are an improvement, but the rush to pass them was purely politicalSign up for climate and environment editor Adam Morton’s free Clear Air newsletter hereWe should start at the beginning in assessing the Labor-Greens deal to revamp Australia’s national environment law. And the beginning is that, ideally, you would not start from here.Despite its name, the 1999 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act was designed under John Howard to allow developments to go ahead, usually with conditions attached that may limit the damage to nature. Continue reading...

We should start at the beginning in assessing the Labor-Greens deal to revamp Australia’s national environment law. And the beginning is that, ideally, you would not start from here.Despite its name, the 1999 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act was designed under John Howard to allow developments to go ahead, usually with conditions attached that may limit the damage to nature.The law does not prioritise environmental protection. It shouldn’t be a shock that it has spectacularly failed to deliver it. There is a case that the best approach would have been to scrap and replace the act.Labor instead chose to amend the existing legislation, arguing it could improve it for both the environment and business, which has complained of long delays in approval decisions. It means the deal announced on Thursday is a repair job, not a complete rethink of how to best protect Australia’s unique wildlife and wild places as the country faces what scientists say is an extinction crisis.It is worth noting there was no need for the changes to be rushed through this year. A committee inquiry is still under way. The Greens cut a deal at least in part because they feared if they didn’t, the government’s offer would evaporate and it would be content to make a much weaker agreement, from an environmental perspective, with the Coalition next year. The deadline was only political. Sign up to get climate and environment editor Adam Morton’s Clear Air column as a free newsletterThe result is the changes have not had proper scrutiny. The independent senator David Pocock had a point when he described the process as a farce. It means there are likely to be gremlins in the laws that will not be uncovered for a while.But let’s look at what we do know.From an environmental perspective: is this deal an improvement on the existing law? In some key ways, clearly yes.The creation of a national Environment Protection Agency with the power to enforce compliance and apply beefed-up penalties is a step forward – if well used. The same applies to the creation of minimum national environment standards against which development applications will be assessed.Plenty about the standards is still not known, though. Only two draft standards have been released, with more to come. As with so much of this, the details will matter.The commitment to tighten loopholes that made state-sanctioned native forest logging and agricultural land-clearing effectively exempt from national laws is a significant and necessary win for nature. The revamp would have been a joke without them.This change won’t stop logging or land-clearing, but will boost legal and social pressure on the logging industries in Tasmania and New South Wales. Anthony Albanese basically acknowledged this on Thursday, saying the forest industry was increasingly reliant on plantation timber – it already provides nearly 90% of wood in Australia – and that the government would kick in $300m for a “forestry growth fund” as it moved in that direction.The Greens’ demand that fossil fuel projects cannot be fast-tracked in the way other developments can – renewable energy and housing, for example – makes obvious sense as far as it goes.It also makes sense that Labor has dropped a proposal to give states and territories the power to make decisions on large coalmining and unconventional gas projects that affect groundwater or waterways under plans to “streamline decision-making”. Water resources are a national issue, and should have federal oversight.Here the politics get a little murky. Did Labor actually ever really plan to give up power over what is known as the “water trigger”? At least some of the “concessions” to the Greens – the commitment to axe the logging loophole, for example – were steps the government had said it was prepared to make, but held back for the final negotiations.skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Clear Air AustraliaAdam Morton brings you incisive analysis about the politics and impact of the climate crisisPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionSimilarly, it’s an open question whether the environment minister, Murray Watt, and those around him really believed an agreement was could be landed with the divided and self-destructing Coalition, despite repeated claims that he was prepared to make concessions either way. If a deal was done it was always likely to be with the Greens. They don’t call Watt a political fixer for nothing.Back on the positives: one of the more contentious issues in the debate over the laws has been whether to include a definition of “unacceptable impacts” that should in theory lead to quick “no” decisions on some developments. It stayed in. Again, the details and interpretation will be crucial.But there are also problems, and many unanswered questions.The amended laws lean heavily on the use of offsets, which basically allow some nature to be bulldozed as long as other areas are protected. As Guardian Australia’s Lisa Cox has shown, offset schemes have repeatedly not delivered anything like what has been promised.The government has proposed a “restoration contribution fund” that will allow developers to kick in cash in return for permission to do some environmental damage. This sort of model, which critics have called a “pay-to-destroy” fund, failed spectacularly in NSW. The negotiations with the Greens have introduced some limits, but many people will be sceptical whether the “net gain” for nature that Watt has promised can be guaranteed.Non-fossil fuel developments will be able to be fast-tracked, with decisions promised in as little as 30 days and in some cases left to the states. The country needs a rapid rollout of renewable energy, but this timeframe risks squashing the rights of communities to test and object to developments.The laws also maintain the existing approach of giving the minister of the day significant discretion over how the act is used. Experts say this includes in some cases the authority to approve developments they consider in the national interest, and a “rulings power” that could limit legal challenges.Finally, the laws go close to ignoring what will ultimately be the greatest threat to much of the environment – the climate crisis. Developers will have to disclose their expected emissions, but this information will have no bearing on whether a project goes ahead. As has been said many times before, this defies logic.It means that – even as some conservationists celebrate victories that have been the result of years of dedicated campaigning – the arguments over what more is needed to give Australian nature the protection it deserves will continue.

Long-sought environmental law reform is finally here. But will the compromise deal actually protect nature?

After years of failed attempts, Australia’s environmental laws are finally getting an overhaul. But will they stop the damage done to nature?

Brayden Stanford/Pexels, CC BY-NC-NDToday is a landmark day for environmental law. After years of false starts and abandoned promises, Labor has finally struck a deal with the Greens to pass long-awaited changes to the federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. The laws are expected to pass the Senate today – the final parliamentary sitting day of the year. Change is long overdue, as the 25-year-old laws have been shown to be not fit for purpose. Australia’s unique species and ecosystems are in real trouble. Threatened species populations are falling year after year, while climate change is driving species to extinction and ecosystems towards collapse. Significantly, neither Labor nor the Greens are declaring the bill a complete success. In its second reading today, Labor Senator Michelle Ananda-Rajah described the bill as “not perfect”, while the Greens described it as falling “woefully short” on climate. Environment Minister Murray Watt was negotiating with both the Coalition and the Greens to pass the laws. While the Greens agreed to the deal and extracted key concessions on native forest protections, Watt has left some wins for business and the Liberal Party. The compromise deal is indeed far from perfect. But after five years of stalled reforms, it’s clear significant compromise was the only way for the laws to pass. What was in the original reform bill? In late October, Labor introduced reforms that proposed a slew of changes to existing environment laws. These included provisions for: making national environmental standards to guide decision-making a new federal environmental protection agency planning at a bioregional scale to assess cumulative damage across a landscape These changes were broadly positive. But other elements raised considerable concern, namely: considerable ministerial discretion over whether to apply the new national environmental standards to development applications a wide-ranging national interest exemption allowing the government to fast-track projects in the undefined “national interest” fast-tracking for some decisions allowing developers to pay into a “restoration fund” to compensate for biodiversity loss despite evidence it worsens biodiversity loss excluding native forest logging from Commonwealth oversight plans to devolve environmental decision-making to states, with the pro-mining and anti-regulation Western Australian government the first in line. The original 500-page draft bill had areas of considerable uncertainty, such as requiring the minister to knock back developments if satisfied they would have “unacceptable impacts”. The idea was sound: create red lines where projects don’t have to be considered if damage to the environment would be too great. But the definitions were confusing and subjective. For instance, an “unacceptable impact” on a critically endangered species was defined as one that “seriously impairs, will seriously impair, or is likely to seriously impair” species viability. But “seriously impair” was nebulously defined as “something if, compared to the action not being taken, the impact results in the thing being seriously altered for the worse”. Industry criticised this for setting the bar too low, fearing it would stop projects in their tracks. What concessions have the Greens secured? While the Labor-Greens deal means the bills can now pass the Senate, it hasn’t fundamentally changed what was introduced by Labor. The concessions include: better protection for native forests banning fast-tracking of new coal and gas projects reining in ministerial discretion. The Greens are claiming their major concession is the removal of a longstanding exemption for the logging industry for areas of native forest covered by Regional Forest Agreements. Forested areas under these agreements currently have no protection from federal environment laws. Under the changes, these agreements will have to comply with the laws and meet higher standards within 18 months. The deal contains compensation for forestry workers. This is a clear win for the environment. The Greens also secured modest progress on climate, but far short of their long-sought climate trigger, which was a non-starter for Labor. Instead, the bill will be amended to remove coal and gas projects from fast-tracked approvals and to prevent the minister from declaring these to be projects to be in the “national interest”. Crucially, the Greens claim the deal will tighten ministerial discretion. The original reforms said the minister “must be satisfied” a decision is “not inconsistent with” the National Environmental Standards. This gave the environment minister of the day wide leeway to depart from the standards and approve projects. The Greens are claiming a major win here by changing the language from “not inconsistent with” these standards to “consistent with”. This isn’t semantics – it’s a stricter legal test. The amendments will also bring more land clearing under the environment assessment regime and allow the minister to declare some matters too important to be offset by paying into the new Restoration Contributions Fund. This could be a potentially important safeguard. Wins for the Liberals? In recent months, Watt has pitched these reforms as a win for the environment and for business, which would benefit from faster approvals. But businesses were wary of the nebulous concept of “unacceptable impacts”. It looks like Liberal Senator Jonathon Duniam’s proposed changes to the definition of “unacceptable impacts” have been supported. The definition of an “unacceptable impact” on a critically endangered species has been pared back to “seriously impairs […] viability”. This means projects can’t be knocked back if they are only likely to seriously impair viability. “Seriously impair” has now been redefined as “something if, compared to the action not being taken, the impact results in an impairment or alteration of the thing that is of a severe nature and extent”. These are terms requiring subjective interpretation, but “severe nature” may make it harder to reject projects than “seriously altered for the worse”. Will the new legislation stem the damage to nature? The bar for improvement is low. Australia’s current environment laws are riddled with administrative discretion. Many projects are never assessed, and 99% of projects assessed under these laws are given the green light. The revised bill contains some key elements proposed by the scathing 2020 Samuel Review, such as provision for National Environmental Standards, while the concessions won by the Greens reduce ministerial discretion. Samuel described today’s deal as a “great balance” between environment and business concerns. Much will be up in the air even after these laws pass. The government has only drafted two of the many environmental standards anticipated, one on matters of national environmental significance and one on environmental offsets. It remains to be seen whether these standards will improve decision-making, and they are also not yet finalised. Major questions around the interpretation of language in the new laws may need to be hashed out in future court proceedings. The Greens were unable to remove Labor’s new “pay to destroy” from the laws. This is a significant concern, as the controversial ability for developers to pay into a restoration fund will likely be seen as the easy route. This mechanism is already up and running in New South Wales, with poor outcomes. What now? These reforms are the end of a tortuous process – and the start of another, far bigger, job. To be successful, they will need to be coupled with far greater public investment and rigorous enforcement. The true test of these reforms will be whether we succeed in the ultimate act of conserving and recovering the wildlife and places Australians know and love. Justine Bell-James receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Great Barrier Reef Foundation, the Queensland Government, and the National Environmental Science Program. She is a Director of the National Environmental Law Association and a member of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists.Euan is a Councillor within the Biodiversity Council, a member of the Ecological Society of Australia and president of the Australian Mammal Society.Phillipa C. McCormack receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Natural Hazards Research Australia, the National Environmental Science Program, Green Adelaide, the North East NSW Forestry Hub and the ACT government. She is a member of the National Environmental Law Association and International Association of Wildland Fire and affiliated with the Wildlife Crime Research Hub.Yung En Chee receives/has received funding from the Australian Research Council. She also receives funding and research contracts from Melbourne Water through the Melbourne Waterway Research-Practice Partnership 2023-2028. Yung En is a member of the Society for Conservation Biology.

Labor’s nature laws risk collapse with deal yet to be struck on eve of parliament’s final sitting day

Greens expected to sign on to 11th-hour compromise after Labor offers new concessionsAnthony Albanese is yet to land a deal to rewrite federal nature laws ahead of parliament’s final sitting day of the year, leaving the long-promised reforms at risk of collapse for the second time in 12 months.But political, industry and environment movement sources expect the Greens will eventually accept an 11th-hour compromise after Labor offered new concessions to secure the minor party’s support. Continue reading...

Anthony Albanese is yet to land a deal to rewrite federal nature laws ahead of parliament’s final sitting day of the year, leaving the long-promised reforms at risk of collapse for the second time in 12 months.But political, industry and environment movement sources expect the Greens will eventually accept an 11th-hour compromise after Labor offered new concessions to secure the minor party’s support.The government was locked in tense negotiations with the Greens and the Coalition on Wednesday as it races to meet a self-imposed deadline of overhauling the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act before parliament breaks for summer.The prime minister, Anthony Albanese, has become involved in negotiations, speaking directly with his Greens counterpart Larissa Waters in a bid to resolve the standoff.Albanese’s active role in party-to-party talks on legislation is typically a sign that negotiations have reached the pointy end.Government sources confirmed there was no deal as of Wednesday night.The prime minister was yet to hold leader-to-leader talks with Sussan Ley as of Wednesday night, although the environment minister, Murray Watt, did speak again with his Liberal counterpart, Angie Bell.Watt’s meeting with Bell showed the government remained open to a potential deal with the Coalition, although that option was considered less likely after Ley criticised Labor’s offer to them as “totally insufficient”.Guardian Australia understands the opposition requested additional business-friendly changes on Wednesday, further complicating the prospects of a last-minute deal between the major parties.After an initial package of concessions, including measures to effectively prevent the fast-tracking of coal and gas projects, failed to sway the Greens, the government offered further changes to the minor party on Wednesday.Guardian Australia has not seen the revised offer and neither the Greens or the government would confirm details of the updated proposal.The Greens party room met on Wednesday to consider a position.Inspired by Graeme Samuel’s 2020 review of the EPBC Act, the bill promises to better protect nature through new environmental standards while also speeding up project assessments.It will also establish a new environmental protection agency – a Labor election promise at the past two federal ballots.The bill has faced intense criticism from all sides. Environmentalists warn it won’t properly tackle the extinction crisis while industry fears that certain features, in particular a proposed new “unacceptable impact”, could knock out projects.If Labor can’t secure a deal on Thursday, it would mark the second time in 12 months that planned reforms to the EPBC Act have been pushed off the agenda.In the last term of parliament, the former environment minister, Tanya Plibersek, proposed a staged approach to reforms and introduced legislation to establish an environment protection agency.But when Plibersek was on the cusp of a deal with the Greens and independent senator David Pocock, the bill was vetoed by the prime minister after pressure from the Western Australian government and mining sector.Albanese decided against resurrecting the bill ahead of the federal election in May, delaying the reform task until after he was returned to power.In an email to supporters on Wednesday, the Labor Environment Action Network (LEAN) – which has campaigned for years to fix the EPBC Act – said it preferred the government teamed up with the Greens.“The Greens offer includes most of LEAN’s key asks, and we are hopeful this will be the path forward. The Coalition offer, while clearly inferior, does not catastrophically weaken the Labor bills,” the email, seen by Guardian Australia, said.“We remain positive, though understandably nervous, and we know many of you feel the same.”

Labor’s attempts to woo Greens and Coalition on nature laws revealed amid criticism of ‘coin toss’

Labor is continuing talks with both sides and could be prepared to give more groundFollow our Australia news live blog for latest updatesGet our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcastThe fate of Labor’s nature laws hangs in the balance after new concessions to the Coalition and the Greens failed to immediately convince either party to support them.But Labor is continuing talks with both sides and could be prepared to give more ground, as it desperately tries to land a deal to overhaul the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act before parliament rises for the year on Thursday night. Continue reading...

The fate of Labor’s nature laws hangs in the balance after new concessions to the Coalition and the Greens failed to immediately convince either party to support them.But Labor is continuing talks with both sides and could be prepared to give more ground, as it desperately tries to land a deal to overhaul the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act before parliament rises for the year on Thursday night.The intensifying negotiations comes as the government’s own advisory body on threatened species - the threatened species scientific committee (TSSC) - warned the legislation had not got the balance right to meet the goal of no new extinctions.In a submission to a Senate inquiry examining the bills, the committee warned the bills appeared to increase the minister’s discretion to decide when environmental protections would be upheld and this “could undermine” efforts to protect wildlife and avoid extinctions.The environment minister, Murray Watt, presented separate amendments to the Coalition and the Greens on Tuesday morning as he continues to pursue potential deals with both.The Climate Council chief executive, Amanda McKenzie, criticised the government for treating the long-awaited reforms “like a coin toss”.“Do they really care about protecting Australians and our environment from climate change, or is it all just politics?” she said.Under his offer to the Greens, Watt has offered several changes to address the party’s concern that coal and gas projects could be fast-tracked under the revamped EPBC Act.In one concession, the government is prepared to limit a new “streamline assessment” process to restrict fossil fuel projects.Labor is also prepared to reverse a controversial decision to hand the so-called “water trigger” back to the states, and ensure the commonwealth minister retains the ability to approve projects even under agreements that devolve decision-making powers to the states.As revealed on Saturday, coal and gas projects would also be excluded from a special “national interest” exemption if the Greens agree to support the legislation.After discussing the concessions at a party-room meeting on Tuesday morning, Guardian Australia understands the Greens are still not satisfied with the laws.The list of written amendments did not include the government’s offer to subject native forest logging to national environmental standards within three years, as negotiations continue on that provision.The Greens environment spokesperson, Sarah Hanson-Young, on Wednesday said the three-year timeframe was “three years too long”.Watt presented a separate set of concessions to the Coalition on Tuesday morning, which included imposing a 14-day time limit on “stop-work orders” and clarification that the maximum fines for breaches of nature laws – which are set at $1.6m for individuals and $825m for businesses – would only apply in the “most serious and egregious cases”.The latest offer did not include changes to “unacceptable impact” – a new definition that would, if met, result in an application being immediately refused.Clarifying that definition has been a key demand for the Coalition and industry groups, who claim it would set too low a bar to kibosh a project.Legal and scientific experts have the opposite view, fearing the provision won’t properly protect the most at-risk species and ecosystems.Liberal sources confirmed the shadow environment minister, Angie Bell, told the Coalition’s joint party-room meeting on Tuesday morning that failing to revise the definition was a “deal-breaker” for the opposition.Guardian Australia understands Watt remains open to reworking the “unacceptable impact” definition as well as the proposed new “net gain” test, which is supposed to force developers to make up for damage and deliver an overall benefit for the environment.The opposition leader, Sussan Ley, said the concessions offered on Tuesday morning were “totally insufficient”.Ley said the fact that Watt was simultaneously negotiating with the Coalition and the Greens showed that his main motivation was a “political fix”.“Right now, we have an environment minister with two sets of amendments, one in each hand. They’re radically different, these amendments,” she said.“He’s saying to the Coalition, make a deal with me. He’s saying to the Greens, make a deal with me. What does that tell you? What that tells you is this is a minister in search of a political fix, not in search of the legislative reform we need to bring investment, to back-in communities and jobs and to build the energy future that this country deserves.”

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.